[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65832-65940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30545]




[[Page 65831]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 91, et al.



Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations 
Requirements; Air Carrier and Commercial Operator Training Programs; 
Final Rules



Flight Crewmember Duty Period and Flight Time Limitations and Rest 
Requirements; The Age 60 Rule; Proposed Rules

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

[[Page 65832]]


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 
passenger-carrying 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 

[[Page 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 passenger-carrying 
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 passenger-carrying 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 one-fourth 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 ``code-sharing'' 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, 

[[Page 65834]]
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 code-sharing 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:
    <bullet> 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)
    <bullet> 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 
passenger-carrying 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 

[[Page 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 

[[Page 65836]]
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 on-demand, 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 

[[Page 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 non-turbojet airplanes with 9 or fewer passenger seats, 
on-demand operations with airplanes with 30 or fewer passenger seats, 
operations in single-engine 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 on-demand 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 piston-engined, 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 Sec. 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 on-demand air taxi operations may be considered in the 
future.
    The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) objects to 
including all scheduled passenger-carrying 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 passenger-seating 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. 

[[Page 65838]]

    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 
Sec. 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 on-demand 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 short-range 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 
reciprocating-powered planes and will thereby lose some significant 
safety benefits such as the following:
    <bullet> The two-pilot crew requirement with captains required to 
hold an Air Transport Pilot rating.
    <bullet> Aircraft certificated to higher levels of aircraft 
performance.
    <bullet> Aircraft maintenance procedures under the more 
comprehensive Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program.
    <bullet> Safety equipment such as GPWS, TCAS, CVR, and weather 
radar.
    One commenter lists some of the more ``onerous'' proposed 
requirements:
    <bullet> ``Ditchable'' exits in case of water landings.
    <bullet> Emergency floor path exits.
    <bullet> Third attitude indicator (in aircraft flown in daylight 
under visual flight rules).
    <bullet> 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 
code-sharing 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. 

[[Page 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 Sec. 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 
(Sec. 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 Sec. 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. Two-thirds 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 single-engine 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 

[[Page 65840]]
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 cost-efficient 
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 passenger-carrying 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 single-engine 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 

[[Page 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 passenger-seating 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., pre-commuter 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 

[[Page 65842]]
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 Sec. 135.261(b), 
which allows Alaskan scheduled operators to use Sec. 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 

[[Page 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, Secs. 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, Sec. 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 well-supported 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 121.2(c). 
Until that date, there will be no age restrictions on the pilots of 
commuter 

[[Page 65844]]
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 on-demand 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 

[[Page 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 code-sharing 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 
Sec. 121.400(b) be amended by adding a group specific to propeller-
driven 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 

[[Page 65846]]
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 Sec. 121.422).
    While the FAA does not agree with AACA's recommendation to 
``grandfather'' dispatcher certificates to current flight followers or 
flight locating personnel, Sec. 65.57 outlines a means of providing 
credit for previous experience in order to take the practical test. All 


[[Page 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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, Sec. 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 

[[Page 65848]]
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, Sec. 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 Sec. 121.2(c) and Sec. 135.2(c) allow for regular or 
accelerated compliance with part 121 requirements. Proposed 
Secs. 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 Secs. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 

[[Page 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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     Upgrade will apply to all airplanes     Upgrade will apply to all 
      stated, measured from the rule        including newly manufactured airplanes        newly manufactured    
             publication date             ------------------------------------------          airplanes         
------------------------------------------                                 Within   ----------------------------
            Issue/requirement                    Within 15 months        years (#)         After years (#)      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Passenger Seat Cushion Flammability,    ...........................           15                             
 10-19 Pax Secs.  121.2, 121.312(c).                                                                            
2. Lavatory Fire Protection, 10-30 Pax     ...........................            2                             
 Secs.  121.2, 121.308.                                                                                         
3. Exterior Emergency Exit Markings, 10-   Yes.                                                                 
 19 Pax Sec.  121.310(g).                                                                                       
4. Pitot Heat Indication System, 10-19     ...........................            4                             
 Pax Secs.  121.2, 121.342.                                                                                     
5. Landing Gear Aural Warning, 10-19 Pax   ...........................            2                             
 Secs.  121.2, 121.289.                                                                                         
6. Takeoff Warning System, 10-19 Pax       ...........................  ...........  4.                         
 Secs.  121.2, 121.293.                                                                                         
7. Emergency Exit Handle Illumination, 10- ...........................            2                             
 19 Pax Secs.  121.2, 121.310(e)(2).                                                                            
8. First Aid Kits, 10-19 Pax Sec.          Yes.                                                                 
 121.309(d)(1)(i).                                                                                              
9. Emergency Medical Kits, 20-30 Pax Sec.  Yes.                                                                 
  121.309(d)(1)(ii).                                                                                            
10. Wing Ice Light, 10-19 Pax Sec.         Yes.                                                                 
 121.341(b).                                                                                                    
11. Fasten Seat Belt Light and Placards,   Yes \1\                      ...........  21.                        
 10-19 Pax Secs.  121.2, 121.317.                                                                               
12. Third Attitude Indicator, 10-30 Pax:.                                                                       
    Turbojet.............................  Yes \2\.                                                             
    Turboprop Secs.  121.2, 121.305(j)...  ...........................          152  15 months.\2\              
13. Airborne Weather Radar, 10-19 Pax      Yes.                                                                 
 Sec.  121.357.                                                                                                 
14. Protective Breathing Equipment, 10-30                                                                       
 Pax.                                                                                                           
    Sec.  121.2..........................  ...........................            2                             

[[Page 65850]]
                                                                                                                
    Sec.  121.337(b)(8)--Smoke and fume                                                                         
     protection                                                                                                 
    Sec.  121.337(b)(9)--Fire fighting                                                                          
     (20-30 only)                                                                                               
15. Safety Belts and Shoulder Harnesses,   ...........................  ...........  15 months.                 
 Single point inertial harness, 10-19 Pax                                                                       
 Secs.  121.2, 121.311(f).                                                                                      
16. Cabin Ozone Concentration, 10-30 Pax   Yes.                                                                 
 Sec.  121.578.                                                                                                 
17. Retention of Galley Equipment, 10-30   Yes.                                                                 
 Pax Secs.  121.576, 121.577.                                                                                   
18. Ditching approval, 10-30 Pax Secs.     Yes \3\....................          153                             
 121.2, 121.161(b).                                                                                             
19. Flotation means, 10-30 Pax Secs.       ...........................            2                             
 121.2, 121.340.                                                                                                
20. Door Key and Locking Door, 20-30 Pax   Yes.                                                                 
 Sec.  121.313(f) & (g).                                                                                        
21. Portable O2, 20-30 Pax Sec.  121.327-  Yes.                                                                 
 121.335.                                                                                                       
22. Additional life rafts, 10-30 Pax Sec.  Yes.                                                                 
  121.339.                                                                                                      
23. First Aid Oxygen, 20-30 Pax Sec.       Yes.                                                                 
 121.333(e)(3).                                                                                                 
24. Enroute radio communications, 10-30    Yes.                                                                 
 Pax Sec.  121.99.                                                                                              
25. Latex gloves, 10-30 Pax Sec.           Yes.                                                                 
 121.309(d)(2).                                                                                                 
26. Passenger information cards, 20-30     Yes.                                                                 
 Pax Sec.  121.571(b).                                                                                          
27. Flashlights-additional for flight      Yes.                                                                 
 attendant and pilot, 10-30 Pax Sec.                                                                            
 121.549(b).                                                                                                    
28. Flashlight holder for flight           Yes.                                                                 
 attendant, 20-30 Pax Sec.  121.310(l).                                                                         
29. DME, 10-30 Pax Sec.  121.349(c)......  Yes.                                                                 
30. Single engine cruise performance       Yes.                                                                 
 data, 10-30 Pax (required for                                                                                  
 determining alternates) Sec.  121.617.                                                                         
31. Performance, Obstruction Clearance,    Yes.\4\....................         154                              
 and Accelerate-stop Requirements, 10-19                                                                        
 Pax Secs.  121.2, 121.157, 121.173(b),                                                                         
 121.189(c).                                                                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 Sec.  121.317(a) within 2 years.                    
\2\ Turbojet 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.                              
\3\ Transport 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      135.213...............................  121.97, 121.99, 121.101, 121.107.    
 Routes: Domestic, Flag, and                                                                                    
 Supplemental Operations.                                                                                       
Subpart G--Manual Requirements...  135.21, .23...........................  121.133, .135, 121.137.              
    --Contents and personnel.....  ......................................  121.141.                             
    --Airplane flight manual                                                                                    
Subpart I--Airplane Performance    135.365-.387..........................  121.175-.197.                        
 Operating Limitations.                                                                                         
Subpart J--Special Airworthiness   ......................................  121.217.                             
 Requirements.                                                                                                  
    --Internal doors.............  135.87................................  121.285.                             
    --Cargo carried in the         135 App. A............................  121.289.                             
     passenger compartment.                                                                                     
    --Landing gear aural warning   ......................................  121.291.                             
     device.                                                                                                    
    --Emergency evacuation and                                                                                  
     ditching demonstration.                                                                                    
    --New special airworthiness    ......................................  121.293(a) (new).                    
     requirements (retrofit) and                                                                                
     requirements applicable to                                                                                 
     future manufactured                                                                                        
     airplanes.                                                                                                 
    --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          ......................................  121.308.                             
     inspection.                                                                                                
    --Hand-held fire               135.177(b)............................  121.309(b).                          
     extinguishers.                                                                                             
    --First aid kits and medical   135.155...............................  121.309(c).                          
     kits.                                                                                                      

[[Page 65851]]
                                                                                                                
    --Crash ax...................  135.177(a)(1).........................  121.309(d).                          
    --Emergency evacuation         135.177(a)(2), 135.178(c)-(h).........  121.309(e), 121.310(c)-(h).          
     lighting and marking                                                                                       
     requirements.                                                                                              
    --Seatbacks                                                                                                 
    --Seatbelt and shoulder        135.117...............................  121.311(e), 121.311(f).              
     harnesses on the flight deck.                                                                              
    --Interior materials and       135.169(a)............................  121.312(b).                          
     passenger seat cushion                                                                                     
     flammability.                                                                                              
    --Miscellaneous equipment....  ......................................  121.313 (c), (f), (g).               
    --Cockpit and door keys......  ......................................  121.313(f).                          
    --Cargo and baggage            ......................................  121.587.                             
     compartments.                                                                                              
    --Fuel tank access covers....  ......................................  121.314, .221.                       
    --Passenger information......  ......................................  121.316.                             
    --Instruments and equipment    135.127...............................  121.317, 121.323.                    
     for operations at night.                                                                                   
    --Oxygen requirements                                                                                       
    --Portable oxygen for flight   135.157...............................  121.237-.335, 121.333(d).            
     attendants.                                                                                                
    --Protective breathing         ......................................  121.337.                             
     equipment (PBE).                                                                                           
    --Additional life rafts for    135.167...............................  121.339.                             
     extended underwater                                                                                        
     operations.                                                                                                
    --Flotation devices                                                                                         
    --Pitot heat indication        ......................................  121.340.                             
     system.                                                                                                    
    --Radio equipment............  135.158...............................  121.342.                             
    --Emergency equipment for      135.177, .178.........................  121.353.                             
     operations over uninhabited                                                                                
     terrain.                                                                                                   
    --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       135.151...............................  121.359.                             
     systems.                                                                                                   
    --Ground proximity warning     135.153...............................  .....................................
     system (GPWS).                                                                                             
Subpart L--Maintenance,                                                                                         
 Preventive Maintenance, and                                                                                    
 Alterations:                                                                                                   
    --Applicability..............  135.411(a)(2).........................  121.361.                             
    --Responsibility for           135.413...............................  121.363.                             
     Airworthiness.                                                                                             
    --Maintenance, preventive      135.423, .425.........................  121.365, .367.                       
     maintenance, and alteration                                                                                
     organization.                                                                                              
    --Manual requirements........  135.427...............................  121.369.                             
    --Required inspection          135.429...............................  121.371.                             
     personnel.                                                                                                 
    --Continuing analysis and      135.431...............................  121.373.                             
     surveillance.                                                                                              
    --Maintenance and preventive   135.433...............................  121.375.                             
     maintenance training                                                                                       
     programs.                                                                                                  
    --Maintenance and preventive   ......................................  121.377.                             
     maintenance personnel duty                                                                                 
     time limitations.                                                                                          
    --Certificate requirements...  135.435...............................  121.378.                             
    --Authority to perform and     135.437...............................  121.379.                             
     approve maintenance,                                                                                       
     preventive maintenance, and                                                                                
     alterations.                                                                                               
    --Maintenance recording        135.439(a)(2).........................  121.380(a)(2).                       
     requirements.                                                                                              
    --Transfer of maintenance      135.441...............................  121.380a.                            
     records.                                                                                                   
Subpart M--Airman and Crewmember                                                                                
 Requirements:                                                                                                  
    --Flight attendant complement  135.107...............................  121.391.                             
    --Flight attendants being      135.128(a)............................  121.391(d).                          
     seated during movement on                                                                                  
     the surface.                                                                                               
    --Flight attendants or other   ......................................  121.391(e), 121.417, 121.393 (new).  
     qualified personnel at the                                                                                 
     gate.                                                                                                      
Subparts N and O--Training         ......................................  121.400-121.459.                     
 Program and Crewmember                                                                                         
 Requirements.                                                                                                  
Subpart P--Aircraft Dispatcher     ......................................  121.461-121.467.                     
 Qualifications and Duty Time                                                                                   
 Limitations: Domestic and Flag.                                                                                
Air Carriers                                                                                                    
Subparts Q, R, and S--Flight Time  135.261-135.273.......................  121.470-121.525.                     
 Limitations and Rest                                                                                           
 Requirements: Domestic, Flag,                                                                                  
 and Supplemental Operations.                                                                                   
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      ......................................  121.557, .559, 121.565 (new).        
     deck.                                                                                                      
    --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    135.121, 135.87, .122.................  121.575, 121.577.                    
     passengers.                                                                                                
    --Alcoholic beverages........  ......................................  121.578(b).                          
    --Retention of items of mass.  135.93................................  121.579.                             
    --Cabin ozone concentration..  ......................................  .....................................
    --Minimum altitudes for use    135.75, 135.23(q).....................  121.581, 121.586.                    
     of autopilot.                                                                                              
    --Forward observer's seat                                                                                   
    --Authority to refuse          135.87, 135.229, .217.................  121.589, 121.590.                    
     transportation.                                                                                            
    --Carry-on baggage...........  ......................................  121.617(a).                          
    --Airports                                                                                                  
Subpart U--Dispatching and Flight                                                                               
 Release Rules:                                                                                                 
    --Flight release authority...  ......................................  121.597.                             

[[Page 65852]]
                                                                                                                
    --Dispatch or flight release   135.211...............................  121.611.                             
     under VFR.                                                                                                 
    --Operations in icing          135.227, .341, 135.345................  121.629.                             
     conditions.                                                                                                
    --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      135.439(a)(2), 135.443................  121.707, 121.709.                    
     summary report.                                                                                            
    --Alteration and repair        ......................................  .....................................
     reports.                                                                                                   
    --Airworthiness release or     ......................................  121.711, .713, 121.715.              
     airplane log entry.                                                                                        
    --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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 121.97 or Sec. 121.117, the FAA 

[[Page 65853]]
points out under Secs. 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 Sec. 121.133 and Sec. 121.135). 
While the requirements of parts 121 and 135 are similar, part 121 
manual requirements contain a more extensive list of manual contents 
(Sec. 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, Sec. 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-to-date (see Sec. 135.21).
    Comments: Fairchild Aircraft states that Sec. 121.137 would require 
at least one copy of the manual specified by Sec. 121.133 to be carried 
in the airplane and that this is a reasonable proposal that they fully 
support. Fairchild Aircraft also states that Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 121.135(b)(2). This is not a substantive change from Notice 95-5 
because Sec. 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 Sec. 121.141(b)(2). These recommendations are appropriate. In the 
final rule Secs. 121.135(b)(2) and 121.141(b)(2) are revised 
accordingly.
    In response to the comment that Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
single-engine airplanes under part 121. No change to this prohibition 
was proposed since the FAA does not consider single-engine airplanes 
acceptable to part 121 standards. Under the proposal, this section was 
amended to delete an obsolete reference to Sec. 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 two-engine 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 

[[Page 65854]]
affected commuters would comply with the requirements of 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 121.161(a) 
requirement to be within 1 hour of an airport with one engine 
inoperative. One commenter suggests that Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Secs. 135.145 and 121.163 
require proving tests for materially altered airplanes. However, under 
Sec. 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 

[[Page 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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, Sec. 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, 
Secs. 121.175 through 121.187 apply to reciprocating engine-powered 
transport category airplanes and Secs. 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 Secs. 121.175 through 
121.197, as applicable.
    Comments: ALPA states that all requirements of part 121 subpart I 
should be complied with by all turbo-propeller 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: accelerate-stop and obstacle clearance data). RAA also 
recommends a 2-year time frame instead of the proposed 1-year 
performance compliance date. 

[[Page 65856]]

    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 Sec. 135.181(a)(2) into Sec. 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 Secs. 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 Sec. 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 accelerate-stop 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 
Sec. 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-to-19 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 

[[Page 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 
Sec. 121.191 and that commuters adopting the Sec. 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 Sec. 135.371 
(a) and (c)(1). Also, in the rate-of-climb formula for transport 
category airplanes certificated under CAR 4a [Sec. 121.181 (a) and 
(c)(1) and Sec. 121.183 (a)(2) and (c)(1)] it is not clear as printed 
that the subscript <INF>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 Sec. 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 Sec. 121.213 (a) and (b), Sec. 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 
Sec. 23.787(e). The FAA proposed to amend Sec. 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 Sec. 135.87 
that have been moved into Sec. 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 

[[Page 65858]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 121.291(b). Demonstrations have not 
been required for airplanes with fewer than 44 passenger seats.
    Under Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 23.803 requires a 
demonstration for commuter category airplanes. One commenter states 
that Sec. 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 Sec. 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, Sec. 121.291(b) is amended to make clear that 
it, as well as Sec. 121.291(a), only applies to airplanes with more 
than 44 passenger seats.
    The FAA agrees that the language in Sec. 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 Sec. 121.291(d).
    New special airworthiness requirements (retrofit) and requirements 
applicable to future manufactured airplanes:
    <bullet> 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 

[[Page 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 low-wing 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 Sec. 121.293(a) as 
proposed.
    <bullet> 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 Sec. 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 (Sec. 121.293(b)).
    Comments: One commenter notes that a takeoff warning would not be 
required under Sec. 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 deg. 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 Sec. 121.293(b) (now 
Sec. 121.293) does not apply to any in-service airplanes affected by 
this rule, the requirement for airplanes 

[[Page 65860]]
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 over-the-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 
(Secs. 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 turbojet-powered 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 121.305 including the requirement for a third attitude indicator. 
The notice did not contain amendatory language to Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 passenger-carrying transport category airplanes. 
The FAA proposed to apply the requirements of Sec. 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, Sec. 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 

[[Page 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 

[[Page 65862]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 121.310(f) for airplanes having 
a passenger configuration of more than 19 seats. The FAA proposed to 
amend Sec. 121.310(f) to exclude nontransport category airplanes.
    Section 121.310(g) (and its parallel requirement in Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 

[[Page 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 121.310(c)(3) to show 
compliance with Sec. 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 4\3/4\ feet high and question the need to comply with 
the provision of Sec. 121.310, which requires compliance with 
Sec. 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 4\3/4\ feet, it is likely 
that the required exit markings are located less than 4 feet above the 
floor and that compliance with Sec. 121.310(c)(3) is not necessary. 
Another commenter believes that the requirement in Sec. 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 Sec. 121.310. Accordingly, they 
provide some suggestions for such a system.
    Embraer, a foreign manufacturer of transport category airplanes, 
believes that Sec. 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 Sec. 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, Sec. 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 Sec. 135.178(f)(2) or 
the identical text of Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 121.310(d) do 
not apply in the final rule to nontransport category airplanes 
certificated after December 31, 1964, since the requirements of 
Sec. 121.310 (c) and (h) apply only to transport category airplanes.
    3. The requirement for an illuminated exit operating handle 
(Sec. 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.

[[Page 65864]]

    4. Section 121.310(f) was proposed to apply to airplanes with a 
passenger-seating configuration of more than 19 seats. This remains in 
the final rule.
    5. The requirement for marking emergency exits on the outside in 
Sec. 121.310(g) remains as proposed since compliance is relatively 
simple and inexpensive for all affected operators.
    6. The exterior lighting standards in Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 121.2(e)(1) to require that airplanes manufactured after 1 year 
after publication of the final rule meet the requirements of 
Sec. 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 Sec. 121.311(f) applies to newly 
manufactured nontransport category airplanes, appropriate language is 
added to that paragraph.
    The final rule also revises Sec. 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, Secs. 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-surface-area components installed in airplanes with 
20 or more passenger seats. (See proposed Sec. 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 Secs. 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 
(Sec. 25.853(a)). One commenter states that the installation of 
interior materials complying with Sec. 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, Sec. 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; 

[[Page 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 fire-blocking 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 fire-blocking layer 
along with the covering.
    Based on the above, the FAA has decided to adopt the seat cushion 
flammability standards of Sec. 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, Sec. 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 Sec. 121.313(f) and (g). 
However, although not specifically discussed in Notice 95-5, 
Sec. 121.313(c) pertaining to a power supply and distributive system 
would also be required.
    Comments: Fairchild Aircraft notes that Sec. 121.313(c) requires a 
power supply and distribution system that meets the requirements of six 
sections of part 25. Because Sec. 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 Sec. 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 

[[Page 65866]]
25 that are listed in Sec. 121.313(c): however, the commenter has 
apparently overlooked the alternative provisions contained in that 
section. In part, Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 121.313(c). The issue is moot, however, since 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 high-quality 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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, Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 121.2(e)(2)(ii) by referencing Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 25.857, referenced in 
Sec. 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 

[[Page 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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), 
Sec. 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, Sec. 121.316 was 
amended to require airplanes already in service to comply with 
Sec. 25.963(e) on a retrofit basis. These requirements pertain to all 
transport category, turbine-powered 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 Secs. 25.963(e) and 121.316. Since 
Sec. 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 Sec. 121.316.
    Comments: Raytheon Corporation submitted comments on the costs of 
complying with Sec. 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 
Sec. 121.317. There was no preamble discussion of this section because 
the FAA determined that current requirements for affected commuters in 
Secs. 135.127 and 91.517 were substantively the same as those in 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Secs. 121.317 and 135.127 allow the use of no smoking placards that 
meet the requirements of Sec. 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 Sec. 121.317(b) specifies when fasten 
seatbelt signs must be turned on. To ensure that the present 
requirements of Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 121.317(a) within 2 years 
after the date of publication of this final rule. In addition, 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 

[[Page 65868]]
with 20 to 30 passenger seats, as proposed.
    In the case of Sec. 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, 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 passenger-seating 
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 
Sec. 121.337(b)(9)(iv) was also revised to except airplanes having a 
passenger-seating 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 Sec. 121.337 by a date 
2 years after the publication date of the final rule. (See Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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, Sec. 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 

[[Page 65869]]
a case by case basis, if a deviation is appropriate. These deviations 
are issued pursuant to Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 91.205(b)(11) is 
beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Moreover, under Sec. 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, 
Sec. 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, (Secs. 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 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 135.227 (c), (e), and (f) need 
to be incorporated into Sec. 121.341 to accommodate certain affected 
airplanes. These requirements pertain to operating limitations for 
flying into known icing 

[[Page 65870]]
conditions if the airplane is not equipped for icing conditions. Thus 
the final rule Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 121.344 of the final rule to state that Sec. 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 Sec. 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-the-top 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 

[[Page 65871]]
proposed rule would require compliance with Sec. 121.353.
    Comments: Two commenters state that application of Sec. 121.353 to 
affected commuters would provide relief from compliance with 
Sec. 91.205, which would reduce the standards. One of these commenters 
claims that S-type ELT's as required by Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 121.353 or 
Sec. 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 Sec. 91.205(b)(11) be amended to exclude these 
certificate holders.
    RAA and ASA point out that the requirement for ELT's in Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 121.353 should be 
revised to clarify that it replaces the requirements for pyrotechnic 
signaling devices in Sec. 91.205(b)(11) pertaining to aircraft for hire 
operated over water beyond power off gliding distance to shore. The 
proposed applicability of Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 (Secs. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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, 

[[Page 65872]]
affected carriers would be required to comply with part 121 TCAS 
requirements in Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 121.345(c)(2), which requires 
Mode S transponders, is similar to a requirement in part 135 
(Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 turbopropeller-powered 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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; Sec. 135.413 contains a similar requirement. Under the 
proposal, affected commuters must comply with Sec. 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 

[[Page 65873]]
this section and by Secs. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 135.431. The FAA proposed that affected commuters comply with 
Sec. 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 

[[Page 65874]]
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 Sec. 121.380(a)(2) to 
accommodate propeller-driven airplanes used by some affected commuters 
and to Sec. 121.380(a)(2)(v) to adopt the language found in 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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, Sec. 121.391(e) applies in the 
future to some operations that do not require flight attendants. 
Therefore, the FAA proposed to move Sec. 121.391(e) to a new separate 
section, proposed Sec. 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 

[[Page 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-passenger-seat 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 Sec. 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 Secs. 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 Secs. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 (Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.

[[Page 65876]]


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 Sec. 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 Secs. 119.57 and 119.58)'' later in 
this preamble.
    Briefing passengers before takeoff. The FAA proposed to amend 
Sec. 121.571(a) to bring over from Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 121.574.
    Under current Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 135.91 to Sec. 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 Sec. 121.575. The FAA proposed 
that affected commuters comply with the requirements of Sec. 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 

[[Page 65877]]
such items are secure before takeoff. The FAA proposed that the 
affected commuters comply with Sec. 121.577, which is substantively the 
same as Sec. 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 
Sec. 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, 
Sec. 121.579 does not apply.
    Section 135.93 is similar to Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 121.586. These procedures must be 
developed in accordance with Sec. 382.21. Since operators under parts 
121 and 135 are already in compliance with Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 121.589. Interior cargo must be secured 
in accordance with Sec. 121.285. (See discussion of Sec. 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 
passenger-seating configuration of 10 or more. No 

[[Page 65878]]
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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 121.611 because it is the safe way and costs nothing.
    FAA Response: In the final rule, affected commuters are required to 
comply with Sec. 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 FAA-approved airplane flight manual of 10-19 passenger 
airplanes. Comparable Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 

[[Page 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 
Secs. 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 Sec. 121.715 on in-flight medical 
emergency reports is an obsolete requirement that should be eliminated. 
These commenters also contend that Sec. 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 Sec. 121.715, 
relating to inflight medical emergencies, is obsolete and it has been 
deleted in the final rule. The commenters are correct that Sec. 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 Sec. 119.53, recency of operation under Sec. 119.63, and 
management personnel under Secs. 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 Sec. 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 ``on-demand 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 

[[Page 65880]]
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 ``on-demand.'' 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 Sec. 119.3.
    ``All-cargo operations''. Proposed Sec. 119.3 defines ``all-cargo 
operation'' to mean any operation for compensation or hire that is 
other than a passenger-carrying 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 Secs. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 

[[Page 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 passenger-seating 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 Sec. 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 ``doing-business-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 

[[Page 65882]]
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 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Secs. 121.163, 125.1, and 135.145 to make the proving test requirements 
consistent in those parts. No comments were received on these 
Sec. 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 
Secs. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 119.35(h)(7) provides that the applicant report the period of 
coverage, not that it be in 

[[Page 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 Sec. 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 certificate-holding 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 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Secs. 121.79 and 135.17. Therefore there will be no 
changes to current procedures as a result of new Sec. 119.51 (d) and 
(e).
    Section 119.53--Wet leasing of aircraft and other transportation by 
air arrangements. Proposed Sec. 119.53 on wet leasing would be revised 
from current Sec. 121.6 to do the following: (1) clarify that the 
leasing requirements pertain only to wet leasing (which is defined in 
Sec. 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 

[[Page 65884]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 119.53(c).
    Section 119.55--Obtaining deviation authority to perform operations 
under a U.S. military contract. Proposed Sec. 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 (Secs. 119.57 & 119.58). These two proposed 
new sections generally recodify Secs. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 119.57 to read ``Obtaining Emergency Deviation Authority to 
Perform Unapproved Operations'' and Sec. 119.58 to be ``Operational 
Emergencies Requiring Immediate Decision and Action.'' Additionally, 
the commenter expresses concern that Sec. 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 
Secs. 121.557, 121.559, and 135.19 as new Sec. 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 Sec. 119.58 does not appear in final part 119. Instead 
Secs. 121.557, 121.559 and 135.19 will be retained in parts 121 and 
135. However, the substance of proposed Sec. 119.57 on obtaining 

[[Page 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 119.61 a new paragraph (c), which contains the Sec. 135.35 
language for surrender of operations specifications and certificate if 
a certificate holder terminates business.
    Section 119.63--Recency of operation. Proposed Sec. 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 short-term, 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 Sec. 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 on-demand 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,'' 
Sec. 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 (Secs. 119.69 and 119.71) would be 
substantially the same as those currently in Secs. 135.37 and 135.39. 
The management personnel requirements for operations conducted under 
part 121 (Secs. 119.65 and 119.67) would be similar to those currently 
in Secs. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 

[[Page 65886]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 135.39(c) that the required 
experience in maintaining aircraft must include the recency 
requirements of Sec. 65.83 has been added to proposed Sec. 119.67(c) 
and carried over to proposed Sec. 119.71(e).
    Chief pilot. Proposed Sec. 119.71(c)(1) and (d)(1) omitted the word 
``current'' from existing Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Secs. 119.67(e) and 119.71(f) 
authorize the Manager of the Flight Standards Division in the region of 
the certificate-holding district office to authorize a certificate 
holder to employ a person who does not meet the qualifications in 
proposed Secs. 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 Sec. 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 code-sharing 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 

[[Page 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 Sec. 119.67 to be more stringent than its 
corresponding section in part 121 (Sec. 121.61). This commenter 
suggests that Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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, 
Sec. 119.67(e) allows operators to request authorization from their 
district office for the continued employment of those directors. 
However, note that Secs. 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, Sec. 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 

[[Page 65888]]
airplanes. For first time applicants, both Secs. 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 Secs. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 ``Sec. 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.                          

[[Page 65889]]
                                                                        
  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.             
------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                                                        

[[Page 65890]]
   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).                              

[[Page 65891]]
                                                                        
  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 

[[Page 65892]]
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 one-time $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 off-the-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 up-front 
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 
one-time cost estimate to account for up-front administrative and 
engineering costs to comply with Type Data Certificates was submitted 
by the commenter. The FAA verified this cost-estimate 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 

[[Page 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 accelerate-stop 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-engine-inoperative-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 newly-manufactured 10-to-19-seat airplanes. 
The commenter also reports a per-airplane-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 per-airplane cost for cargo and 
baggage compartment liners of $13,000 for a retrofit; $10,420 for a 
newly-manufactured 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 newly-manufactured airplanes beginning 
four years after the effective date. Thus, there 

[[Page 65894]]
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 
newly-manufactured 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 newly-manufactured 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-airplane-retrofit 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 one-year 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 newly-manufactured airplane, involve a one-time 
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 

[[Page 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-to-19-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 newly-
manufactured 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 one-
time 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 exterior-lighting-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 

[[Page 65896]]
$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 fire-blocked-seat cushions, $5,000 to 
install these seat cushions on newly-manufactured 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 per-airplane 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 newly-manufactured 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 

[[Page 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 jet-driven 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 Sec. 135.113) single-engine 
airplanes, namely single-engine 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 

[[Page 65898]]
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 on-demand 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 broad-based 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 passenger-carrying 
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 ticket-
price 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. 

[[Page 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-to-30-seat airplanes are presented in the following 
areas:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     10-19    20-30     Total    Present
                                     seats    seats      cost     value 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-    20-to-30- 
                                                    seat         seat   
                                                 airplanes    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 performance-obstacle-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-manual-performance 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  x 10 
airports  x 2 runways per airport  x 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 

[[Page 65900]]
costs reliably. Although reliable information is available on the cost 
of contractor conducted obstacle-performance-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-of-safety 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-communications-voice-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 

[[Page 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-to-19-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 full-time 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.  x  
40 hrs.). Similarly, the median annual salary of a flight locator was 
estimated to be $19,656 ($7.50 x 1.26 x 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 

[[Page 65902]]
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--Carry-On 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 carry-on 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. 

[[Page 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-to-30-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 x 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-to-30-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 

[[Page 65904]]
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-to-30-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-to-19 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 

[[Page 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 
age-profile 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. 

[[Page 65906]]

    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 one-time 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 newly-
manufactured 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 newly-
manufactured 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-to-19-seat airplanes because 
the 20-to-30-seat airplanes are type-certificated under part 25, which 
requires fire-blocked seats for airplanes type-certificated 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 
fire-blocked cushion with another fire-blocked cushion (due to normal 
wear and tear) would be only due to the difference in the costs of the 
fire-blocking material, which was estimated to be $5,000. There would 
be no incremental labor costs because it would take as long to replace 
a fire-blocked cushion with a fire-blocked cushion as it would take to 
replace a 

[[Page 65907]]
non-fire-blocked cushion with a non-fire-blocked cushion. The FAA had 
also estimated that 10 percent of the 10-to-19-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 
new-installation 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 
newly-manufactured 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 first-year-
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 

[[Page 65908]]
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 x $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 preventive-maintenance-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-to-19-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  x  $20.58  x  80 hours or $37,870. For 20-
to-30-seat seat operators, the cost in 1996 will be 25 operators  x  
$20.58  x  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-time-limitation 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 x 639) for 10-to-19-seat non-Alaska, and $181,409 ($26,000/44 x 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. 

[[Page 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 propeller-driven 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-to-30-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)  x  .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  x  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 

[[Page 65910]]
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 first-time candidates 
available for these positions. This is because some first-time 
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. 

[[Page 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 ``commuter-type'' 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, positively-controlled-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-to-30-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 


[[Page 65912]]
or a combination of several factors such as:
    <bullet> Preventing the occurrence of a problem with an airplane in 
the first place (Commuter rule);
    <bullet> Providing more or better crew training to properly respond 
to the problem after it occurs (Air Carrier Training Program rule);
    <bullet> Providing a dispatcher to help identify a problem before 
it becomes a potential accident (Commuter rule); and
    <bullet> 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 cost-
savings 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 across-the-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 passenger-carrying 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 

[[Page 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 passenger-carrying 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. 

[[Page 65914]]

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


Sec. 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 Sec. 91.321 of 
this chapter.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 

[[Page 65915]]
operation or, if passengers are carried, they are only those specified 
in Secs. 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 on-
demand 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 
Sec. 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 

[[Page 65916]]
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 Secs. 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 passenger-seat 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 Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 
Secs. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 

[[Page 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


Sec. 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.


Sec. 119.23  Operators engaged in passenger-carrying 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.


Sec. 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


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 119.35  Certificate application.

    (a) A person applying to the Administrator for an Air Carrier 

[[Page 65918]]
    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 Secs. 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 Secs. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 

[[Page 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 Sec. 119.65(a) or Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 
certificate-holding 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 Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 119.45  [Reserved]


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 Sec. 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. 

[[Page 65920]]

    (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 Sec. 119.53(c).
    (11) Any authorization or requirement to conduct supplemental 
operations as provided by Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 135.411(a)(2) of this chapter.
    (9) Additional maintenance items required by the Administrator 
under Sec. 135.421 of this chapter.
    (10) Aircraft wet lease information required by Sec. 119.53(c).
    (11) Any authorized deviation or exemption from any requirement of 
this chapter.
    (12) Any other item the Administrator determines is necessary.


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 

[[Page 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.


Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 on-
demand operations.
    (f) A certificate holder under this part may, if authorized by the 
Department of Transportation under Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 

[[Page 65922]]
the certificate holder's operations specifications.
    (e) The Administrator may, at any time, terminate any grant of 
deviation authority issued under this section.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 
Sec. 119.51;
    (3) The certificate holder does not conduct a kind of operation for 
more than the time specified in Sec. 119.63 and fails to follow the 
procedures of Sec. 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.


Sec. 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. 

[[Page 65923]]



Sec. 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 full-time 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.


Sec. 119.67  Management personnel: Qualifications for operations 
conducted under part 121 of this chapter.

    (a) To serve as Director of Operations under Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 

[[Page 65924]]
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.


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.


Sec. 119.71  Management personnel: Qualifications for operations 
conducted under part 135 of this chapter.

    (a) To serve as Director of Operations under Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 

[[Page 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:


Sec. 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 Secs. 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 FAA-approved 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:


Sec. 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. 
    
[[Page 65926]]

    (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 Sec. 121.157(f), the Airplane 
Performance Operating Limitations in Secs. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.


Secs. 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.


Sec. 121.4  [Amended]

    13. Section 121.4 is amended by removing ``Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 (Secs. 121.21 through 121.29) is removed, and the 
subpart heading is reserved.

Subpart C--[Removed and Reserved]

    16. Subpart C (Secs. 121.41 through 121.61) is removed and the 
subpart heading is reserved.

Subpart D--[Removed and Reserved]

    17. Subpart D (Secs. 121.71 through 121.83) is removed and the 
subpart heading is reserved.
    18. Section 121.133 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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, 

[[Page 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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 

[[Page 65928]]
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 Sec. 121.173 are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec. 121.173  General.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each 
certificate holder operating a reciprocating-engine-powered airplane 
shall comply with Secs. 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 Secs. 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 
Secs. 121.175 through 121.187; or
    (2) Until December 20, 2010, a turbo-propeller-powered airplane 
described in Sec. 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 
Secs. 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:


Sec. 121.175  Airplanes: Reciprocating-engine-powered: Weight 
limitations.

* * * * *
    (f) This section does not apply to large nontransport category 
airplanes operated under Sec. 121.173(c).
    28. Section 121.177 is amended by revising the section heading and 
adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 121.177  Airplanes: Reciprocating-engine-powered: Takeoff 
limitations.

* * * * *
    (c) This section does not apply to large nontransport category 
airplanes operated under Sec. 121.173(c).
    29. Section 121.179 is amended by revising the section heading and 
adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 121.179  Airplanes: Reciprocating-engine-powered: En route 
limitations: all engines operating.

* * * * *
    (c) This section does not apply to large nontransport category 
airplanes operated under Sec. 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) V<INF>so<SUP>2'' and revising ``0.026 V<INF>so2'' in 
paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) to read ``0.026 V<INF>so<SUP>2''; and adding 
a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec. 121.181  Airplanes: Reciprocating-engine-powered: En route 
limitations: One engine inoperative.

* * * * *
    (d) This section does not apply to large nontransport category 
airplanes operated under Sec. 121.173(c).


Sec. 121.183  [Amended]

    31. Section 121.183 is amended by revising ``0.0013 V<INF>so2'' in 
paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(3) to read ``0.013 V<INF>so<SUP>2''.
    32. Section 121.185 is amended by revising the section heading and 
adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 121.185  Airplanes: Reciprocating-engine-powered: Landing 
limitations: Destination airport.

* * * * *
    (c) This section does not apply to large nontransport category 
airplanes operated under Sec. 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:


Sec. 121.187  Airplanes: Reciprocating-engine-powered: Landing 
limitations: Alternate airport.

* * * * *
    (b) This section does not apply to large nontransport category 
airplanes operated under Sec. 121.173(c).
    34. Section 121.211 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 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 Secs. 121.215 through 121.283.
    (c) Each certificate holder must comply with the requirements of 
Secs. 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 Sec. 121.293.


Sec. 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:


Sec. 121.285  Carriage of cargo in passenger cargo compartments.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), (c), or (d) or this 
section, no 

[[Page 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.


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 bank-and-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:


Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 

[[Page 65930]]
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:


Sec. 121.309  Emergency equipment.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (7) At least two of the required hand fire extinguisher installed 
in passenger-carrying 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 passenger-carrying 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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 25.853(d) in effect March 
6, 1995 (formerly Sec. 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.

[[Page 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 Sec. 25.853(d) in effect March 6, 1995 (formerly 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 25.853(d) in effect March 6, 1995 (formerly 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 25.853(d) in effect March 6, 1995 (formerly Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 25.853(d) in effect March 6, 
1995 (formerly Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 25.853(a) in effect March 6, 1995 (formerly Sec. 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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 

[[Page 65932]]
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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 anti-icing 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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 25.1326 of 
this chapter in effect on April 12, 1978.
    53. Section 121.344 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 121.343.
    54. Section 121.349 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 121.356  Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System.

* * * * *
    (c) The appropriate manuals required by Sec. 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 

[[Page 65933]]
adding, in their place, the words ``a certificate holder,'' to read as 
follows:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 23.1457(a) (1) and (2), 
(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g); Sec. 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 Sec. 23.1457 or Sec. 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:


Sec. 121.360  Ground proximity warning-glide slope deviation alerting 
system.

    (a) No person may operate a turbine-powered 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 turbine-powered 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:


Sec. 121.380  Maintenance recording requirements.

    (a) Each certificate holder shall keep (using the system specified 
in the manual required in Sec. 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:


Sec. 121.391  Flight attendants.

    (a) Each certificate holder shall provide at least the following 
flight 

[[Page 65934]]
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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 121.391(a), but the number of flight attendants remaining on board 
is fewer than required by Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.


Sec. 121.435  [Removed]

    63. Section 121.435 is removed.


Sec. 121.455  [Amended]

    64. Section 121.455 is amended by adding the words ``or operator'' 
after the words ``certificate holder,'' wherever they appear.


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 2\1/2\ 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 2\1/2\ 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 
Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 Secs. 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:


Sec. 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 Secs. 135.261 through 135.273 of this 
chapter.
    69. Section 121.500 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 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 Secs. 135.261 through 135.273 of this 
chapter. 

[[Page 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:


Sec. 121.571  Briefing passengers before take-off.

    (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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 
Sec. 121.587, the cockpit door, if required, may remain open during 
such inspections.


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 121.547 in airplanes in which closing and locking the flight crew 
compartment door is impossible while the jumpseat is in use.


Sec. 121.589  [Amended]

    75. Section 121.589 is amended in paragraphs (b) and (c)(2) by 
removing the reference ``Sec. 121.285(c) of this part'' and adding in 
its place ``Sec. 121.285 (c) and (d).''
    76. Section 121.590 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 ``certificate-holding district office'' and by revising 
paragraphs (a)(12) and (f) to read as follows: 

[[Page 65936]]



Sec. 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 Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 Secs. 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 Secs. 121.189 through 121.197. Airplanes described in 
Sec. 121.157(f) and paragraph 1.a of this appendix must comply on 
and after December 20, 2010. Airplanes described in Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Secs. 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 

[[Page 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Applicable     Provisions: CFR/
          Part 121 section                aircraft        FR references 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  121.312(a)(1)(i).............  Transport          Heat release    
                                      category; or       rate testing.  
                                      nontransport       14 CFR         
                                      category type      25.853(d) in   
                                      certificated       effect March 6,
                                      before January     1995: 14 CFR   
                                      1, 1965;           parts 1 to 59, 
                                      passenger          Revised as of  
                                      capacity of 20     January 1,     
                                      or more;           1995, and      
                                      manufactured       amended by Amdt
                                      prior to August    25-83, 60 FR   
                                      20, 1990.          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.          
Sec.  121.312(a)(1)(ii)............  Transport          Heat release    
                                      category; or       rate and smoke 
                                      nontransport       testing. 14 CFR
                                      category type      25.853(d) in   
                                      certificated       effect March 6,
                                      before January     1995: 14 CFR   
                                      1, 1965;           parts 1 to 59, 
                                      passenger          Revised as of  
                                      capacity of 20     January 1,     
                                      or more;           1995, and      
                                      manufactured       amended by Amdt
                                      after August 19,   25-83, 60 FR   
                                      1990.              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       
Sec.  121.312(a)(2)(i).............  Transport          Provisions of 14
                                      category; or       CFR 25.853 in  
                                      nontransport       effect on April
                                      category type      30, 1972: 14   
                                      certificate        CFR parts 1 to 
                                      before January     59, Revised as 
                                      1, 1965;           of January 1,  
                                      application for    1972.          
                                      type certificate                  
                                      filed prior to                    
                                      May 1, 1972;                      
                                      substantially                     
                                      complete                          
                                      replacement of                    
                                      cabin interior                    
                                      on or after May                   
                                      1, 1972.                          
Sec.  121.312(a)(3)(i).............  Transport          Heat release    
                                      category type      rate testing.  
                                      certificated       14 CFR         
                                      after January 1,   25.853(d) in   
                                      1958;              effect March 6,
                                      nontransport       1995: 14 CFR   
                                      category type      parts 1 to 59, 
                                      certificated       Revised as of  
                                      after January 1,   January 1,     
                                      1958, but before   1995; and      
                                      January 1, 1965;   amended by Amdt
                                      passenger          25-83, 60 FR   
                                      capacity of 20     6623, February 
                                      or more;           2, 1995.       
                                      substantially     Formerly 14 CFR 
                                      complete           25.853(a-1) in 
                                      replacement of     effect August  
                                      the cabin          20, 1986: 14   
                                      interior on or     CFR parts 1 to 
                                      after March 6,     59, Revised as 
                                      1995.              of January 1,  
                                                         1986.          
Sec.  121.312(a)(3)(ii)............  Transport          Heat release    
                                      category type      rate and smoke 
                                      certificated       testing. 14 CFR
                                      after January 1,   25.853(d) in   
                                      1958;              effect March 6,
                                      nontransport       1995; 14 CFR   
                                      category type      parts 1 to 59, 
                                      certificated       Revised as of  
                                      after January 1,   January 1,     
                                      1958, but before   1995; and      
                                      January 1, 1965;   amended by Amdt
                                      passenger          25-83, 60 FR   
                                      capacity of 20     6623, February 
                                      or more;           2, 1995.       
                                      substantially     Formerly 14 CFR 
                                      complete           Sec.  25.853(a-
                                      replacement of     1) in effect   
                                      the cabin          September 26,  
                                      interior on or     1988: CFR,     
                                      after August 20,   Title 14, Parts
                                      1990.              1 to 59,       
                                                         Revised as of  
                                                         January 1,     
                                                         1988, and      
                                                         amended by Amdt
                                                         25-66, 53 FR   
                                                         32584, August  
                                                         25, 1988.      
Sec.  121.312(b) (1) and (2).......  Transport          Seat cushions.  
                                      category           14 CFR         
                                      airplane type      25.853(c)      
                                      certificated       effective on   
                                      after January 1,   November 26,   
                                      1958;              1984: 14 CFR   
                                      Nontransport       parts 1 to 59, 
                                      category           Revised as of  
                                      airplane type      January 1,     
                                      certificated       1984, and      
                                      after December     amended by Amdt
                                      31, 1964.          25-59, 49 FR   
                                                         43188, October 
                                                         26, 1984.      
Sec.  121.312(c)...................  Airplane type      Compartment     
                                      certificated in    interior       
                                      accordance with    requirements.  
                                      SFAR No. 41;       14 CFR         
                                      maximum            25.853(a) in   
                                      certificated       effect March 6,
                                      takeoff weight     1995: 14 CFR   
                                      in excess of       parts 1 to 59, 
                                      12,500 pounds.     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 Sec. 125.1 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 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. 


[[Page 65938]]

    90. Section 135.1 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and by 
removing and reserving paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec. 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 Secs. 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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 121.157(f), the Airplane 
Performance Operating Limitations in Secs. 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.

[[Page 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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.


Secs. 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.


Sec. 135.7  [Amended]

    93. Section 135.7 is amended by removing ``Sec. 135.5'' wherever it 
appears and adding in its place ``part 119 of this chapter''.


Sec. 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.''


Sec. 135.23  [Amended]

    95. Section 135.23(a) is amended by removing the reference 
``Sec. 135.37(a)'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 119.69(a) of this 
chapter''.


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 91.19(a) 
of this chapter, that operation is a basis for suspending or revoking 
the certificate.


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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.


Sec. 135.105  [Amended]

    100. Section 135.105(a) is amended by revising the phrase ``by a 
Commuter Air Carrier (as defined in Sec. 298.2 of this title) in 
passenger-carrying operations'' to read ``in a commuter operation, as 
defined in part 119 of this chapter.''


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 

[[Page 65940]]
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.
* * * * *


Sec. 135.244  [Amended]

    103. Section 135.244(a) is amended by revising the phrase ``by a 
Commuter Air Carrier (as defined in Sec. 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 Pena,
Secretary of Transportation.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-30545 Filed 12-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P