[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:
Revise the Federal Aviation Regulations such that all
scheduled passenger service conducted in aircraft with 20 or more
passenger seats would be conducted in accordance with the provisions of
14 CFR part 121. (A-94-191)
Revise the Federal Aviation Regulations such that all
scheduled passenger service conducted in aircraft with 10 to 19
passenger seats would be conducted in accordance with 14 CFR part 121,
or its functional equivalent, wherever possible. (A-94-192)
In the 1994 study, the NTSB examined the differences in flight
dispatch requirements between parts 121 and 135. The NTSB found that,
in the absence of support from licensed dispatch personnel, it is
difficult for a part 135 pilot to accomplish several tasks between
flights in the short periods of time available. The lack of support
might increase the risk of critical mistakes that could jeopardize the
safety of flight. As a result the NTSB issued the following
recommendation to the FAA:
Require principal operations inspectors (POI) to periodically
review air carrier flight operations policies and practices concerning
pilot tasks performed between flights to ensure that carriers provide
pilots with adequate resources (such as time and personnel) to
accomplish those tasks. (A-94-193) The FAA published all of the NTSB
recommendations in the Federal Register (59 FR 63185, December 7, 1994)
and received public comments generally supporting the expansion of the
operational rules of part 121, except for flight time limitations, to
commuter operations under part 135. Some commenters had considerable
reservations about applying certain part 121 equipment requirements to
smaller airplanes. The FAA considered these comments in developing this
rule.
III.E. Related FAA Action
In December 1994, the FAA proposed revisions to the training and
qualification requirements of certificate holders conducting commuter
operations under part 135. The proposed rule also addressed crew
resource management training for pilots, dispatchers, and flight
attendants in part 121. (59 FR 64272, December 13, 1994) [Add Final
Action]
IV. The Proposed Rule and General Description of Comments
In Notice 95-5, the FAA proposed to require that all scheduled
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:
The two-pilot crew requirement with captains required to
hold an Air Transport Pilot rating.
Aircraft certificated to higher levels of aircraft
performance.
Aircraft maintenance procedures under the more
comprehensive Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program.
Safety equipment such as GPWS, TCAS, CVR, and weather
radar.
One commenter lists some of the more ``onerous'' proposed
requirements:
``Ditchable'' exits in case of water landings.
Emergency floor path exits.
Third attitude indicator (in aircraft flown in daylight
under visual flight rules).
Portable protective breathing equipment (PBE).
A commenter points out that the new aircraft performance
requirements would limit maximum operating weight at Grand Canyon due
to the high altitude.
According to these commenters, switching to smaller airplanes will
increase air traffic congestion in the Grand Canyon area, decrease
safety for passengers, and double or triple noise levels.
According to one commenter, these certificate holders do not have
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 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:
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.
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:
Preventing the occurrence of a problem with an airplane in
the first place (Commuter rule);
Providing more or better crew training to properly respond
to the problem after it occurs (Air Carrier Training Program rule);
Providing a dispatcher to help identify a problem before
it becomes a potential accident (Commuter rule); and
Ensuring pilots are not over-worked and tired (The Rest
and Duty NPRM).
The Commuter Rule only addresses a portion of the necessary
requirements to close the accident-rate gap. If the $75 million present
value cost of this rule is combined with the $51 million in 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) Vso2'' and revising ``0.026 Vso2'' in
paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) to read ``0.026 Vso2''; and adding
a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
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 Vso2'' in
paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(3) to read ``0.013 Vso2''.
32. Section 121.185 is amended by revising the section heading and
adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
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
