VI.B. Part 119--Certification: Air Carriers and Commercial

Operators: Summary

Part 119 is a new part that consolidates into one part the

certification and operations specifications requirements for persons

who operate under parts 121 and 135. For the most part, these

regulations are currently in SFAR 38-2, which replaced the

certification and operations specification requirements in parts 121

and 135 in response to the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.

Part 119 was originally proposed in 1988 (53 FR 39853; October

12, 1988; Docket No. 25713). Based on comments received on the

definition of "scheduled operation" in that notice, the FAA published

a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) in 1993 (58 FR

32248; June 8, 1993; Docket No. 25713). In Notice 95-5, the FAA

republished the entire text of part 119 for comment because of the

length of time since the first NPRM, the number of changes that were

made to the proposed text, and the significance of the changes to part

119 that resulted from the review of commuter operations. Each

section of part 119 that had been changed since the previous notices

was explained in the preamble to Notice 95-5.

The first objective of part 119 is to establish a permanent guide

in a new part that will enable persons who provide transportation of

people or cargo to determine what certification, operations,

maintenance, and other regulatory requirements they must comply with.

A second objective is to set out procedural requirements for the

certification process that apply to all certificate holders conducting

operations under part 121 or part 135.

Part 119 accomplishes the following:

(1) Incorporates much of SFAR 38-2 as Subparts A and B;

(2) Revises certification procedures now in parts 121 and 135

and consolidates them as Subpart C;

(3) Revises wet leasing requirements;

(4) Provides definitions for terms such as "direct air carrier"

and "kind of operation," and clarifies the requirements for

operations specifications by adding definitions for terms such

as "domestic operation" and "supplemental operation;"

(5) Provides a roadmap for certificate holders to lead them to

the operating rules in part 121, 125, or 135 that they must

comply with for the kind of operations that they conduct;

(6) Adds a new requirement for a Director of Safety; adds

management requirements for domestic and flag operations

conducted under part 121 consistent with those that now exist

for supplemental operations conducted under part 121; and

consolidates part 121 and part 135 management requirements;

(7) Rescinds part 127 and any requirements that pertain solely

to helicopters in part 121, Subparts A through D; and

(8) Throughout part 121, Subparts A through D, and part 135,

Subpart A, changes various references from CAB requirements to

DOT requirements, changes terminology where needed, and makes

incidental editorial changes.

Comments on Part 119

This section contains a summary and a response to the comments

received on specific sections of part 119.

General Comments on part 119. USAir Express expresses concern

over the 7-year time lag between when part 119 was originally

introduced and the issuance of Notice 95-5. This commenter suggests

that since many changes have occurred in the air industry and in the

FAA, it may be best to issue subparts A and B of part 119, but to

leave the requirements in subpart C in their current form in parts 121

and 135. NATA similarly contends that "the unknown effects of the

requirements contained in part 119 are not adequately considered in

Notice 95-5's cost-benefit analysis." Both of these commenters

believe that the new requirements in part 119 impose unnecessary

administrative burdens for certificate holders.

FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with the arguments presented by

the commenters. For the most part, subchapter C is a recodification

of the existing part 121 and 135 certification requirements for

applicants for air carrier or operating certificates. In some

instances, such as wet leases under § 119.53, recency of

operation under § 119.63, and management personnel under §§ 119.65 and

119.67, where substantive changes are made, further discussion is

contained elsewhere in this preamble.

Section 119.2 -- Compliance. The final rule contains a new

§ 119.2 that states that certificate holders shall continue to comply

with SFAR 38-2 until 15 months after the publication date of the final

rule or the date on which the certificate holder is issued part 121

operations specifications, whichever occurs first.

Section 119.3 -- Definitions. Section 119.3 contains definitions

for the five kinds of operations conducted under parts 121 and 135

(Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental in part 121 and Commuter and On-

demand in part 135). The FAA proposed to move the affected commuters

to part 121 by changing the definitions for "Commuter operations,"

"Domestic operations," and "Flag operations." Comments on these

definitions as they relate to affected commuters are discussed earlier

in the preamble under "V.B. Applicability." Other comments on

proposed definitions are discussed in this section.

General comments on definitions. There were several comments on

the lack of definitions for certain terms in the proposed rule, and,

in some cases, the lack of distinctions drawn among certain terms.

Helicopter Association International (HAI) cites the lack of a

definition for "common carrier," saying that it is hard to understand

the difference between this and the "noncommon carrier." One

commenter recommends that "nonscheduled operations" should substitute

for "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

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 § 119.3.

"All-cargo operations". Proposed § 119.3 defines "all-cargo

operation" to mean any operation for compensation or hire that is

other than a 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"


Comments: ALPA proposes that the FAA should discontinue the

distinction between scheduled passenger and scheduled all-cargo

operations and reserve that distinction for the nonscheduled all-cargo

operation because there is little difference between the scheduled

passenger and scheduled all-cargo operations.

FAA Response: The FAA has considered ALPA's suggestion; however,

it is outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, the definition

has been slightly modified so that passengers described in

§§ 121.583(a) and 135.85 can be carried without the operation losing

its all-cargo status.

"Commuter operations". The proposed definition for "commuter

operations" limits the use of this term to scheduled operations in

airplanes having 9 or less passenger seats or in any size rotorcraft.

Comments: Fairchild Aircraft states that applying the term

"commuter operations" to operations with 9 or fewer passenger seats or

to rotorcraft is inappropriate because this use of the term differs

from the generally accepted meaning, i.e. frequent service over short

stage lengths and service to small communities. According to the

commenter, under this proposed definition, commuter category airplanes

will no longer be used in commuter operations. The commenter also

states that the proposed definition is inconsistent with the use of

the term "commuter operator" in part 93. The commenter suggests that

a new term be invented for scheduled operations with 9 or fewer

passenger seats or rotorcraft.

FAA Response: As was discussed in Notice 95-5 and earlier in

this preamble, the term "commuter" is presently used in several

different ways. The FAA agrees with the commenter that the proposed

definition does not accommodate all of the different uses of the term

"commuter." However, operators of aircraft with 9 or fewer passengers

do provide frequent service over short stage lengths and service to

small communities. Therefore, the term is appropriate for these

operations. The FAA acknowledges that this definition differs from

the definition of "commuter operator" in part 93 and from the DOT

definition. That inconsistency will continue.

"Domestic operation". Proposed § 119.3 defines "domestic

operation" to mean any scheduled operation in specified airplanes

"between any points within the 48 contiguous States of the United

States or the District of Columbia" (2)(i); "between any points

entirely within any State, territory, or possession of the United

States" (2)(ii); or "between any point within the 48 contiguous States

of the United States or the District of Columbia and any specifically

authorized point located outside the 48 contiguous States of the

United States or the District of Columbia" (2)(iii).

The only comment received on this proposed definition is the

comment on its inclusion of a tour operation that departs from and

returns to same point which is discussed earlier. One change in the

proposed definition is replacing the words "any required crewmember"

with the words "each crewmember" to be consistent with the treatment

of the single-engine Otter airplane as previously discussed.

Additionally, the final rule has been slightly modified to include

some of the language currently used in SFAR 38-2.

"Flag operation". Proposed § 119.3 defined "flag operation" to

mean a scheduled operation conducted in specified airplanes "between

any point within the State of Alaska or the State of Hawaii or any

territory or possession of the United States and any point outside the

State of Alaska or the State of Hawaii or any territory or possession

of the United States, respectively" (2)(i); or "between any point

within the 48 contiguous States of the United States or the District

of Columbia and any point outside the 48 contiguous States or the

District of Columbia (2)(ii).

Comments: AACA comments that currently Alaskan operations

conducted under part 121 are conducted under the flag rules of part

121. According to the commenter, a number of Alaska operators

currently hold operating authority and operations specifications to

fly scheduled or charter service to Canada, and to the Commonwealth of

Independent States (the Russian Federation). The commenter states

that the rulemaking should clarify what operating rules are to be used

for operations that previously operated solely under flag rules.

According to the commenter, since most of the flights to the Russian

Federation are on-demand, the impact of part 119 on these flights

needs to be thoroughly analyzed.

FAA Response: Other than minor changes, the proposed definition

of "flag operations" remains in the final rule as proposed.

Accordingly, scheduled operations conducted under part 121 between a

point in Alaska to a point outside of Alaska will be considered flag

operations. Scheduled operations between a point in Alaska and

another point in Alaska will be considered domestic operations. In

fact, scheduled operations from one point in Alaska (or any other

state) to the same point are considered domestic operations.

Nonscheduled operations, whether between points within Alaska or

between a point in Alaska and a point outside of Alaska, will be

considered supplemental operations or on-demand.

One minor change in the definition adds operations between two

foreign points to the list of locations included as flag operations.

"Maximum payload capacity". The proposed definition for "maximum

payload capacity" is the same as the one currently used in SFAR 38-2,

except for the allowances for determining the standard average weights

for crewmembers.

Comments: GAMA comments that the standard oil allowance of 350

pounds found in the definition of "maximum payload capacity" should be

changed to coincide with the type certificated oil value. The

commenter points out that the 350 pound value greatly exceeds any

value found among present and future 10-19 passenger commuter airplane

designs. Fairchild suggests that the definition refer to "full oil"

and that the specific 350 pound allowance should be deleted. RAA

states that the definition uses obsolete values for minimum oil and

fuel and recommends that the FAA eliminate the distinction in the

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


Section 119.5 -- Certifications, Authorizations, and

Prohibitions. This section identifies the type of certificate (air

carrier or operating) the Administrator issues to certificate holders,

depending on the nature of their operations, and specifies certain

authorizations and prohibitions associated with those certificates for

specific types of certificate holders.

Comments: A commenter claims that the distinction between the

air carrier certificate and the operating certificate is ambiguous.

He poses two questions: "Why would we prohibit a 737, 121

certificated, intrastate, common carriage operator (who presumably

would have an operating certificate) from engaging in other common

carrier operations?" The second question is "why would we prohibit a

part 121 common carriage operator with an air carrier certificate from

providing non-common carriage?"

FAA Response: An intrastate common carrier who wishes to conduct

interstate operations must first obtain economic authority to conduct

those operations from the Department of Transportation. Once that

authority is granted, the FAA would issue an air carrier certificate

to that operator if the FAA concluded that the operator could safely

conduct those operations. In regard to the distinction between common

carriage and noncommon carriage, the essential difference is the

presence or absence of a holding out. The FAA believes that an

operator engaged in common carriage (holding out) cannot unequivocally

claim that it can engage in a noncommon carriage operation that would

not have benefited from the holding out activities of the common

carriage operation.

Section 119.7 -- Operations Specifications. In § 119.7 the FAA

proposed identifying items that must be contained in each certificate

holder's operations specifications. No comments were received on this

issue and the final rule is adopted as proposed.

Section 119.9 -- Use of Business Names. In this section, the

FAA proposed to prohibit certificate holders that operate airplanes

under part 121 or 135 from using a business name other than the name

appearing in a certificate holder's operations specifications. The

FAA proposed that the name of the certificate holder conducting the

operation must be displayed on the airplane and clearly visible and

readable to a person standing on the ground at any time except during

flight time, and that the means of displaying the name must be

acceptable to the Administrator.

Comments: Gulfstream Air, NATA, RAA, SP Aircraft, and two

individuals address the requirement to have the certificate holder's

name on the aircraft. Four recommend that the requirement not apply

to on-demand operations. One opposes the requirement because, as an

on-demand operator, his customers often do not want the name of an

airline appearing on the aircraft, but rather prefer to arrive in what

is believed to be their corporate aircraft. One commenter supports

the proposal but recommends that the name of the certificate holder

should be near to and visible from the main cabin entry door, not just

anywhere on the aircraft. Commenters request clarification of

"clearly readable and visible" since this could imply that very large

letters must be used. Also, three commenters indicate that the phrase

"acceptable to the Administrator" needs to be defined.

FAA Response: The purpose of this requirement is for the FAA to

be able to identify, primarily for purposes of ramp inspections, those

who appear to have operational control of the airplane. Some carriers

use names for their businesses other than their corporate name. These

are often called "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


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 121 and commuter

and on-demand operations to be conducted under part 135. Section

119.21(a)(3) states that the Administrator may authorize or require

that (1) certain certificate holders conducting supplemental

operations between airports that are also served by the air carrier's

domestic or flag operations, conduct those operations under the

domestic or flag rules; and (2) certain all-cargo operations that

regularly and frequently serve the same two airports may be required

to be conducted under the domestic or flag rules.

Comments: The National Air Carrier Association (NACA) recommends

deleting "or require" in the second sentence of proposed §

119.21(a)(3). The language goes far beyond the current language of

SFAR 38-2.4(a)(3) or part 121 in its application to supplemental

passenger operations conducted "between points that are also served by

the certificate holder's domestic or flag operations." The preamble

does not provide sufficient explanation or justification to require

the application of domestic or flag operating requirements to

supplemental passenger operations that are operated over routes where

an operator also has domestic or flag operations. There are

sufficient economic and operational safeguards already in place to

preclude abuse. NACA believes that what "may be required" will

quickly become "what is required," with the FAA unilaterally imposing

the requirement to operate certain nonscheduled passenger operations

under domestic or flag rules. There is no safety or accident history

to justify more restrictive regulations. NACA concurs that frequency


service between a pair of points should not be the criterion for

determining which rules apply.

FAA Response: The FAA concurs with the comments from NACA on the

wording of the rule and the words "or require" have been removed in

the final rule.

Section 119.25 -- Rotorcraft operations. Section 119.25 directs

that all rotorcraft operations be conducted under part 135 regardless

of the size or seating capacity of the rotorcraft. However,

external-load operators and agricultural aircraft operators must

comply with part 133 or part 137 of the FAR, respectively.

Notice 95-5 proposed to rescind part 127 because rotorcraft

operators that previously operated under part 127 are directed in §

119.25 to conduct those operations under part 135. Part 135 has been

more recently updated and, therefore, provides a more appropriate

level of safety for rotorcraft operators than part 127.

Comments: HAI opposes removing part 127 at this time. HAI

supports a review and update of this part in the future, but states

that to simply remove this part now would be to allow the certificate-

issuing district office unlimited discretionary powers in the design

of appropriate operations specifications.

FAA Response: Part 127 is not a current part because SFAR 38-2

directed all rotorcraft operators to conduct their operations under

part 135. Appropriate operations specifications for each certificate

holder operating either airplanes or any size rotorcraft are developed

by FAA Headquarters. The standard paragraphs are completely designed

by Headquarters, while nonstandard paragraphs are reviewed and

concurred on by Headquarters. Therefore, the certificate-holding

district office does not have unlimited discretionary powers.

Section 119.33 -- General requirements. In § 119.33 the FAA

proposed that applicants for certificates be required to conduct the

proving tests required for certification under the appropriate

requirements of part 121 or part 135. The purpose of the tests is to

demonstrate (as one of the last steps in the certification process)

that the applicant is qualified and eligible to receive a certificate.

The change permits applicants to complete the certification process

without having to obtain either a deviation or certification to

conduct operations under part 125. The FAA also proposed to amend §§

121.163, 125.1, and 135.145 to make the proving test requirements

consistent in those parts. No comments were received on these §

119.33 issues and the final rule is adopted as proposed.

Section 119.35 -- Certificate application. This section requires

a certificate applicant to submit the application 90 days prior to the

intended date of operation instead of the current standard of 60 days.

This length of time accounts for the actual amount of time required

by the FAA to properly process applications and to allow for agency

documentation in the formal review period.

Paragraphs (c) through (h) of this section are a recodification

of §§ 121.47, 121.48, and 121.49, which deal generally with the

disclosure of financial information and of people/entities that would

control the new certificate holder, applicable only to two categories

of carriers: those who are not air carriers and those applying for

authority to engage in intrastate common carriage but have not

undergone fitness review by the Department of Transportation. The FAA

believes that these requirements are crucial to ensuring safety by

providing a check of financial, management, and other information

about of the certificate holder and his or her ability to conduct safe


Comments: NATA expresses concern about the utility of requiring

detailed financial reporting, because safety problems are "more

appropriately discovered through operational inspections" than through

financial data. SP Aircraft comments that requiring detailed

financial reporting seems excessive for small craft operators of on

demand service since this requirement has not been proposed before

now, and no explanation was provided for it in Notice 95-5. This

commenter shares the concern that the reporting of financial records

would in no way enhance the safety of operations that the FAA claims

this proposal serves. Additionally, the commenter criticizes the

requirement for insurance in that requiring the applicant to have

insurance prior to submitting the application is an unnecessary burden

due to the uncertain time span before application and review is

complete. Thus, it recommends requiring that insurance should be in

place before operations begin.

Fairchild Aircraft comments that § 119.35 fails to define the

requirements for submitting detailed financial data, and recommends

that the FAA establish the minimum qualifications that must be met

under part 119, subpart C.

FAA Response: The financial reporting requirements in

§ 119.35(c) through (h) apply only to persons who are not air

carriers, commonly called "commercial operators," and who are applying

for authority to engage in intrastate common carriage but have not

undergone a fitness review by the Department of Transportation. The

rule language has been updated to make it consistent with new

definitions and certification requirements applicable to these

operators. For persons applying for authority to conduct intrastate

common carriage operations under part 135 these would be new

requirements, as commenters point out. The FAA believes these

requirements are necessary because financial information, management

information, and information concerning who controls the certificate

holder can reveal potential shortcomings on the applicant's ability to

conduct a safe operation. The requirement for insurance information

in § 119.35(h)(7) provides that the applicant report the period of

coverage, not that it be in effect before the application is

submitted. Therefore the date that insurance coverage begins can be

coordinated with the estimated date that operations begin. In order

to make it clear that § 119.35(c) through (h) apply only to applicants

who are commercial operators, the final rule includes cross references

within paragraphs (c) through (h), and paragraphs (g) and (h) have

been switched.

Section 119.41 -- Amending a certificate. FAA proposed new

procedures for making changes to the operating certificate. These

procedures, modeled after 49 U.S.C. Section 44709 and similar to the

procedures used to amend operations specifications, would standardize

the amendment process. Applications for amendments to certificates

would have to be submitted 15 days in advance of the time the operator

wants the amendments to be effective, unless the Administrator

approves a shorter period when circumstances warrant. No comments

were received on this issue and the final rule is adopted as proposed.

Section 119.47 -- Maintaining a principal base of operations,

main operations base, and main maintenance base; change of address.

Section 119.47 requires that a certificate holder maintain a principal

base of operations and allows the certificate holder to establish a

main operation and main maintenance base. Written notification must

be provided to the 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

§ 119.51 applications for amendments to operations specifications

would have to be submitted 15 days in advance for minor or routine

amendments; however the FAA proposed to require that certificate

holders file applications to amend operations specifications at least

90 days before the date proposed by the applicant for the amendment to

become effective in cases of mergers; acquisition or airline

operational assets that require an additional showing of safety (e.g.,

proving tests); changes in the kind of operation as defined in §

119.3; resumption of operations following a suspension of operations

as a result of bankruptcy actions; or the initial introduction of

aircraft not before proven for use in air carrier or commercial

operator operations. It has been the FAA's experience that these

types of major changes do take at least 90 days for the agency to

determine that, as a result of the change, the applicant is properly

and adequately equipped and is able to conduct a safe operation.

Under § 119.51(b), if the Administrator initiates an amendment to

operations specifications, the certificate holder would have 7 days to

submit written information or arguments on the amendment.

Under § 119.51(d), a certificate holder may petition for

reconsideration of a decision on an amendment to operations

specifications. If the amendment is not related to an emergency

situation, the petition suspends the effectiveness of the amendment.

Comments: USAIR Express, RAA, Mesa, ASA address the required lead

times proposed for making either desired or directed changes to

operations specifications. Commenters state that the proposed

requirements to file an air carrier-desired operations specifications

change 90 days before the effective date is excessive. Additionally,

the requirement to respond to changes in operations specifications

within 7 days when directed by the Administrator and complete

implementation within 30 days is unreasonable.

An individual, ASA, and RAA indicate that the proposed language

in § 119.51(d) would not permit the continuation of the practice of

staying the effectiveness of an amendment when an air carrier submits

a petition for reconsideration. The commenters recommend that the

petition for reconsideration stay the effective date of an amendment

pending the final review of the petition.

FAA Response: In response to comments that a request to change

operations specifications must be filed 90 days in advance of the

desired effective date, the FAA will add "unless a shorter time is

approved" to § 119.51(c)(1)(i) so as not to imply that a carrier must

allow the full 90 days. The rest of paragraph (c) reflects current

part 121 and part 135 language and is adopted as proposed.

Since § 119.51(d)(3) clearly states that, if a petition for

reconsideration is filed within 30 days and if no emergency situation

exists, the effectiveness of an amendment to operations specifications

issued by the certificate-holding district office is stayed pending

final review of the petition. The procedures for emergency

situations, spelled out in paragraph (e), are not substantially

different than currently found in §§ 121.79 and 135.17. Therefore

there will be no changes to current procedures as a result of new §

119.51(d) and (e).

Section 119.53 -- Wet leasing of aircraft and other

transportation by air arrangements. Proposed § 119.53 on wet leasing

would be revised from current § 121.6 to do the following:

(1) clarify that the leasing requirements pertain only to wet leasing

(which is defined in § 119.3 as a lease of an aircraft that includes

the provision of any crewmember); (2) extend the wet leasing

requirements to part 135 operations; (3) prohibit a wet lease from a

foreign air carrier or any other foreign person; (4) prohibit a wet

lease from any person not authorized to engage in common carriage; (5)

specify that the Administrator, upon approval of the wet lease, would

determine which party to the agreement has operational control and

would amend the appropriate operations specifications of both parties,

if necessary; and (6) allow a wet lease charter flight to transport

passengers who are stranded because of the cancellation of their

scheduled flight, provided that the wet lease flight is authorized by

OST or the Administrator, as applicable, and that the charter flight

is conducted under the rules applicable to a supplemental or on-demand

operation. These clarifications reflect for the most part current

administrative procedures.

Comments: NACA proposes reorganization of § 119.53, including a

new paragraph regarding operations specifications for short term wet

leases (short term substitute service) that could occur without prior

FAA approval in a situation where there is insufficient time to permit

compliance with the usual requirements for a wet lease.

USAir Express sees this issue as an example of part 119

addressing changes which are not relevant to the goal of bringing

commuter operations up to the standards of part 121, and imposing new

restrictions on wet lease activities at the same time. This company

finds fault with the fact that § 119.53 requires certificate holders

conducting operations to be held to the same operations authorities as

certificate holders arranging for the substitute operations.

British Airways objects to § 119.53 because it prohibits any wet

leasing to U.S. carriers from foreign air carriers without any safety

justification. British Airways sees this prohibition as interfering

with healthy competitive relationships between carriers in an

international market. Japan Airlines agrees with British Airways'

point and adds that this "discriminatory" prohibition contradicts the

Department of Transportation's economic regulations providing for wet

leasing of aircraft by foreign air carriers to U.S. air carriers.

Japan Airlines argues that foreign air carriers are permitted to

operate aircraft in the U.S. only if they meet rigorous requirements

of part 129 of the FAA regulations, which would imply that these

aircraft are safe. Japan Airlines also claims that this regulation

might be contrary to a friendship treaty between the United States and

Japan. The company suggests that the FAA address any specific foreign

carrier safety concerns with something other than a blanket

prohibition of the type proposed.

FAA Response: The changes to current requirements for wet

leasing in § 119.53 codify existing FAA policy on wet leasing. The

FAA requires operators conducting wet leasing operations to hold

operations specifications for the same kind of operation as that being

conducted in order to be sure that the operator is qualified to

conduct that kind of operation. Since foreign air carriers may

conduct operations only under part 129, they do not hold operations

specifications for current part 121 or part 135 certificate holders

and, therefore, may not conduct wet leasing operations for part 121 or

part 135 certificate holders. The FAA is considering NACA's

suggestion regarding short term wet leasing and intends to request

that ARAC develop recommendations on this issue. Regulatory language

is amended to allow short notice wet lease operations to be conducted

prior to providing information required by § 119.53(c).

Section 119.55 -- Obtaining deviation authority to perform

operations under a U.S. military contract. Proposed § 119.55

establishes a new procedure to obtain deviation authority to perform

under a U.S. military contract. This would require the certificate

holder to submit this deviation authority request to DOD's Air

Mobility Command (AMC), who would review the request and, in turn,

forward it and the AMC recommendation on to the FAA for final review.

The logic behind having the AMC review this is to provide an

additional, and more efficient, evaluation by a more qualified

authority on the needs of the military operation.

Comments: One commenter expresses concern about the FAA's need

to have the AMC serve as an extra check on FAA knowledge of deviation

authority. The commenter states that adding another agency to the

process does not serve the interest of readiness, for during military

operations, the demands from the military come "fast and furious with

many changes."

FAA Response: As the FAA explained in Notice 95-5, during the

Desert Shield/Desert Storm operations, the agency was inundated with

requests for deviations. The AMC has the resources to consolidate

these requests, identify the specific regulations from which relief is

sought, and evaluate the requests to determine whether the relief

sought would be needed to accomplish the military mission. This

procedure will enable the agency to process these requests more

efficiently, should the need arise in the future.

Emergency Operations (§§ 119.57 & 119.58). These two proposed

new sections generally recodify §§ 121.57(c), 121.557, 121.559, and

135.19. Section 119.57 addresses emergency situations where it is

impossible for the certificate holder who intends to conduct emergency

operations to act without thorough and complex planning, such as

during natural disasters like floods or earthquakes. Section 119.58

is tailored to emergency operations where thorough and complex

planning are inherently impossible due to the critical issue of time

and the nature of the emergency.

Comments: Three commenters express concern about this proposed

section. One of the commenters believes that this consolidation of

two related yet distinct categories would cause confusion: "Section

119.57 relates to certificate authority to conduct certain operations

on an emergency approval basis, while § 119.58 relates to emergency

operational situations that may require emergency deviation from

prescribed procedures and methods, weather minimums, and FARs to the

extent required for flight safety." The commenter recommends renaming

§ 119.57 to read "Obtaining Emergency Deviation Authority to Perform

Unapproved Operations" and § 119.58 to be "Operational Emergencies

Requiring Immediate Decision and Action." Additionally, the commenter

expresses concern that § 119.58(b) needs to be modified to more

clearly reflect dispatcher capability/responsibility, joint

responsibility, and a cross-check mechanism to ensure critical

operational decisions are not made at the exclusion of safety.

Another commenter states that while he supports the NPRM, he

believes that this recodification would cause greater confusion and

contradict the purpose of existing safety rules because it goes beyond

the scope of the NPRM. He claims that "[t]he two types of 'Emergency

Authority' are of totally different contexts, are truly irrelevant to

each other and there is no apparent advantage to this proposed

modification"; hence, this proposed action is "clearly unwarranted."

The Airline Dispatchers Federation objects to the recodification

of §§ 121.557, 121.559, and 135.19 as new § 119.58 on the grounds that

emergency procedures are an operational issue, not a certification

issue and thus should be located in the operational rules of part 121

and 135.

FAA Response: The FAA accepts the commenters' suggestions.

Therefore § 119.58 does not appear in final part 119. Instead §§

121.557, 121.559 and 135.19 will be retained in parts 121 and 135.

However, the substance of proposed § 119.57 on obtaining deviation

authority for certain emergency operations does not appear in current

part 121 or part 135. Therefore, this section is retained in the

final rule. This new section will provide procedures for such

situations as the recent hurricane in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Deviation authority was needed in order to allow rescue and supply

flights into and out of damaged airports.

Section 119.59 -- Conducting tests and inspections. In § 119.59,

the FAA proposed language to emphasize both the authority of FAA

inspectors to gain access to a certificate holder's books and records

and the fact that a certificate holder risks suspension of part or all

of its operations specifications if it fails to provide that access.

Without access to those records, the FAA cannot fulfill its safety

mission. No comments were received on this issue and the final rule

is adopted as proposed.

Section 119.61 -- Duration of certificate and operations

specifications. Section 119.61 sets out the conditions under which

certificates or operations specifications become ineffective.

Comments: Two commenters recommend that when operations

specifications are changed or superseded, the carrier should be

required to surrender the obsolete copies to the FAA. This would

preclude the chance of outdated operations specifications being in the

hands of the "field operators."

FAA Response: It is the responsibility of the certificate holder

to have procedures in place to ensure that the most current copies of

the operations specifications are adequately and accurately

distributed. The FAA is not requiring that outdated operations

specifications be surrendered to the FAA because of the administrative

burden that such a requirement would entail. However, the FAA has

decided to incorporate into

§ 119.61 a new paragraph (c), which contains the § 135.35 language for

surrender of operations specifications and certificate if a

certificate holder terminates business.

Section 119.63 -- Recency of operation. Proposed § 119.63 would

prohibit a certificate holder from conducting a kind of operation if

that kind of operation has not been conducted for a period of 30

consecutive days. The certificate holder must advise the

Administrator at least 5 consecutive calendar days prior to resumption

of that kind of operation and make itself available for any FAA

reexamination that the FAA considers necessary.

Comments: Eight commenters address this proposed requirement.

One says that 30 days is too short a period and recommends a 6-12

month period. NACA recommends a 6-month period. Comair comments that

the requirement is burdensome to active air carriers wanting to

conduct supplemental operations; this commenter says that the

requirement should be changed to apply to certificate holders or air

carriers who have not conducted any operations, not just a particular

kind of operation, in the previous 30 calendar days. A similar

comment is made by another individual. NACA comments that this

requirement is burdensome to air carriers conducting any type of

operation (domestic, flag, or supplemental), especially to carriers

who provide these services under 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 § 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


In response to the comment to define "kind of operations,"

§ 119.3 defines five kinds of operation as one of the various

operations a certificate holder is authorized to conduct as specified

in the operations specifications; that is, domestic, flag,

supplemental, commuter, or on-demand.

Management Requirements (Proposed Sections 119.65 through

119.71). Notice 95-5 proposed to consolidate management personnel

requirements for operations conducted under part 135 or part 121 into

new part 119 and to apply management personnel requirements to

domestic and flag operations. The management personnel requirements

for operations conducted under part 135 (§§ 119.69 and 119.71) would

be substantially the same as those currently in §§ 135.37 and 135.39.

The management personnel requirements for operations conducted under

part 121 (§§ 119.65 and 119.67) would be similar to those currently in

§§ 121.59 and 121.61, which now apply only to supplemental operations.

The only significant changes under the proposed management

requirements for part 121 and part 135 are as follows:

. Director of safety. The FAA proposed that each certificate

holder that conducts operations under part 121 must have a director of

safety. This person would be responsible for keeping the highest

management officials of the certificate holder fully informed about

the safety status of the certificate holder's entire operation. The

FAA believes that an independent, full time position is important if

at all available or possible. However, it recognizes that in smaller

operations, the director of safety function may be an additional

function of a current manager. Section 119.65(b) provides flexibility

in the requirements for positions and number of positions for

management personnel, including the director of safety.

. Director of operations. The FAA proposed for § 119.67(a) to

require a director of operations to have both 3 years experience as a

PIC of an aircraft under part 121 or part 135 and 3 years supervisory

experience in a position that exercised control over any operations

conducted with aircraft under part 121 or part 135.

In the case of a person becoming a director of operations for the

first time, the FAA proposed that the PIC experience in large aircraft

be recent, i.e., 3 years of experience within the past 6 years. (See

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

operation under part 121, the minimum of 3 years of supervisory or

managerial experience must have been obtained within the last 6 years.

(See proposed § 119.67(a)(2).)

Additionally, for operations conducted under part 135, the FAA

proposed that the director of operations have the following


(1) At least 3 years of 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; or

(2) For a person with previous experience as a director of

operations, at least 3 years experience as a PIC of aircraft operated

under part 121 or part 135; or for a person becoming a director of

operations for the first time, the 3 years of PIC experience must have

been obtained within the past 6 years.

. Director of maintenance. To standardize the certificates

required for the director of maintenance, proposed § 119.67(c) and

119.71(e) would require that a director of maintenance hold a current

mechanic certificate with both airframe and powerplant ratings.

Also, the requirement in present § 135.39(c) that the required

experience in maintaining aircraft must include the recency

requirements of § 65.83 has been added to proposed § 119.67(c) and

carried over to proposed § 119.71(e).

. Chief pilot. Proposed § 119.71(c)(1) and (d)(1) omitted the

word "current" from existing § 135.39(b)(1) and (b)(2) because these

pilot certificates no longer have an expiration date and are revoked

only for cause. The words "and be qualified to serve as PIC in at

least one type of aircraft used in the certificate holder's operation"

are added to clarify that the chief pilot must meet recency of

experience requirements and medical requirements.

In addition to holding the appropriate certificate, in order to

be eligible to be a chief pilot in part 121 or 135 operations, a

person must have at least 3 years experience as a PIC of aircraft

operated under parts 121 or 135. However, if that person is becoming

a chief pilot for the first time, the 3 years experience must have

been obtained within the previous 6 years.

. Chief inspector. Proposed § 119.67(d) requires a chief

inspector for each operator conducting part 121 operations. In

addition to the existing eligibility requirements, the chief inspector

would be required to have at least 1 year of experience in a

supervisory position maintaining large aircraft.

. Deviation authority. Proposed §§ 119.67(e) and 119.71(f)

authorize the Manager of the Flight Standards Division in the region

of the certificate-holding district office to authorize a certificate

holder to employ a person who does not meet the qualifications in

proposed §§ 119.67 or 119.71. For a certificate holder or applicant

that wants to employ a person who does not hold the required airman

certificate (e.g., ATP certificate, commercial pilot certificate,

airframe and powerplant certificate), the deviation authority sections

would not cover such a lack of airman certification situation. The

deviation authority provides a means for competent and qualified

personnel who do not meet the management personnel qualifications to

be employed in required positions.

Comments: A number of commenters responded to the proposed

management requirements for part 119. These are discussed below.

. Director of Safety. United Express comments that the creation

of the director of safety position is in the best interest of the

flying public but that the position's responsibilities will depend on

airline size, equipment, and type of operations. This commenter says

that for small certificate holders, the chief pilot or current

director of operations could assume the duties. United Express also

says that this position should qualify under current § 121.61.

NTSB and several other commenters say that the director of safety

should be independent from operational functions and have direct

access to the highest levels of management.

ALPA recommends that in 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 § 119.65(a) so that the director

of safety is not required to be a full-time position.

Comair, ASA, Gulfstream, and RAA say that § 119.67 does not

provide any qualification requirements for the director of safety.

These commenters request that the FAA permit certificate holders to

designate directors of safety based upon their needs and without an

FAA approval process.

Big Sky Airlines and NATA recommend that smaller certificate

holders be allowed to combine the director of safety position with an

already existing position. Metro International Airways also points

out the burden of this requirement on small certificate holders (e.g.,

those with 10-15 employees or one or two aircraft). This commenter

recommends that these certificate holders be allowed to determine

which management personnel, especially the director of safety and

chief inspector, are needed and to combine these and other positions

as well.

One commenter recommends that smaller operations be permitted to

employ contracted or part-time safety officers who could act for more

than one carrier. This could reduce these certificate holders'

financial burden associated with hiring additional personnel.

One commenter recommends that the director of safety have direct

communication paths with dispatch, maintenance, flight attendant, and

ground operations.

Samoa Air also points out that the requirement for additional

management personnel for certificate holders with three or fewer

aircraft is burdensome and that a proper internal evaluation program

should keep management informed of the certificate holder's safety


One commenter says that § 119.69 does not require a part 135

certificate holder to have a director of safety and that this position

should be required for these certificate holders.

One commenter recommends that the director of safety be excluded

from enforcement action similar to the Aviation Safety Reporting

System under § 91.25.

Inter Island recommends that the safety officer be any line pilot

with 6 months experience with the company and that this position be

kept from the working ranks of line pilots. According to the

commenter, this function should not be given to the chief pilot or

director of operations.

Other comments on management requirements: USAir Express says

that the requirements of this proposed section are burdensome to large

certificate holders because it imposes requirements which are designed

for small certificate holders onto these large certificate holders.

This commenter states that large certificate holders might have many

positions at the Vice President or Director's level to fulfill these

management functions that a small certificate holder would fulfill

through the positions of director of operations, director of

maintenance, chief pilot or chief inspector. This commenter also

notes that the management of large carriers is more complex, involving

knowledge of such areas as labor relations, legal issues, finance, and

quality assurance. To assume that these subjects can be mastered

while also obtaining the required number of years of experience for

each management position is unrealistic. Finally, this commenter

objects to the explanation of deviation authority regarding the

allowance of unlicensed persons to hold management positions and says

that it is inconsistent with the language of the proposed rule itself.

Fairchild Aircraft finds § 119.67 to be more stringent than its

corresponding section in part 121

(§ 121.61). This commenter suggests that § 119.67(a)(1) be changed to

allow the director of operations to hold or have held an ATP

certificate and also to delete the words "large aircraft" in order to

recognize that not all former part 135 certificate holders have been

operating large airplanes.

RAA and many other commenters support "grandfathering" existing

key management personnel in the wake of the proposed rule's more

stringent experience and qualification requirements. These commenters

point out that existing personnel, such as the directors of operations

and maintenance, chief pilot, and chief inspector, may already possess

excellent management skills, and that to hire new personnel would be

unnecessary and burdensome. Action Airlines suggests that instead of

having to replace existing personnel when air carriers upgrade their

equipment, they should have the option to get deviation or wavier

authority and continue to use existing directors of operations, chief

pilots, and directors of maintenance.

Metro International Airways states that the addition of

management personnel would have a significant impact on operators that

only operate two or three affected aircraft. The positions of chief

inspector can be handled effectively by the director of maintenance.

With such a small fleet of aircraft, the chief inspector would spend

many hours idle. Also, a small commuter is more likely to contract

out most, if not all, maintenance functions. In this situation, the

director of maintenance could easily oversee that all work is

completed to FAA standards and signed off by an appropriate person

with an IA rating.

The commenter also opposes the proposed increase in management

experience, indicating it will have a significant impact on small and

proposed commuter airlines. Not only will higher wages be needed to

attract those applicants that have the necessary experience, but the

operators will need to lure those who qualify from secure positions

within the industry. The commenter requests that the FAA define

"large," stating there is a difference between a B747 and a Beech

1900C. The commenter recommends that the FAA retain the part 135

provision that allows the combinations of one or more of the required

management personnel. As the airline grows it is understandable that

the management functions would separate and the manager's experience

level would rise. The addition of a chief inspector and a director of

safety would create a top heavy airline that could not operate at a

reasonable cost. Combining these positions must be allowed so new

entrants with small fleets will have the chance to build an

organization proudly serving the public and the public's interest.

American supports modifying the minimum requirements for director

of operations, chief pilot, director of

maintenance, and chief inspector under § 135.37 operations to reflect

part 121 standards.

One commenter objects to the proposed requirement that a director

of maintenance have 5 years experience in the past 5 years because it

could disqualify those in management positions who may have been the

victims of downsizing and companies going out of business.

One commenter disagrees with the 6-year currency requirement for

the 3 years as PIC (under proposed § 119.67(a)) for a person becoming

a director of operations for the first time. This commenter believes

that PIC time is much more relevant to a director of operations'

administrative responsibilities and that the currency requirement

should apply to the chief pilot, whose function is much more

technical. This commenter also disagrees with proposed § 119.71(c)(1)

and (d)(1) which exempts the chief pilot from being qualified to serve

as PIC in operations conducted under part 121. He believes that since

the chief pilot is directly responsible for the proficiency of the

pilots, he should be able to serve in this capacity.

Commuter Air Technologies says that 4 years in an aircraft type

is more important than 4 years in maintaining a large aircraft as

qualification for chief inspector. This commenter adds that small

certificate holders rely on senior maintenance personnel, such as,

director and chief inspector, for technical and administrative

leadership and that experience in aircraft type would better provide

this type of experience and skill as opposed to experience in

maintaining large aircraft. Similarly, one commenter objects to the

use of the phrase "large aircraft" when many commuter predecessors are

not "large" aircraft (by the definition of SFAR 41); this could

exclude qualifying excellent candidates from such management positions

as director of operations, chief pilot, and director of maintenance.

FAA Response: The FAA contends that most currently employed

directors meet the new standards. For those directors who do not, §

119.67(e) allows operators to request authorization from their

district office for the continued employment of those directors.

However, note that §§ 119.67(e) and 119.71(f) provide for exceptions

from experience requirements, but not from requirements to hold

necessary certificates. The FAA anticipates that most operators whose

directors do not meet the new requirements will request authorization

and that those requests will be granted. The FAA agrees that in some

cases the proposed recency requirements would place an unnecessary

burden on those directors who may have extended periods of

unemployment prior to being hired. Thus, for the final rule, the FAA

is changing some of the recency requirements. The final rule also

standardizes the language as much as possible between operations and

airworthiness management positions. The final rule gives relief for

those operators who do not operate large aircraft.

The FAA will develop handbook guidance on management personnel to

provide FAA inspectors with criteria to respond to requests concerning

issues raised by commenters, such as the combining of certain

positions in the case of small operators. In analyzing such requests,

the FAA will consider the number of airplanes being operated, the

number of employees, the complexity of the operation, the ability of

the operator to perform required tasks, and the equivalent level of


The final rule contains the following requirements:

Director of Safety:

The major carriers have told FAA that they already have

established this position and are already fulfilling this function.

For other operations, § 119.65(b) provides flexibility for

establishing this position.

Director of Operations:

Section 119.67 requires 3 years of experience as PIC of a large

airplane operated under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter when the

certificate holder operates large airplanes. If the certificate

holder uses only small airplanes in its operation, the experience may

be obtained in either large or small airplanes. For first time

applicants, both §§ 119.67 and 119.71 require that the 3 years PIC

experience must have been obtained within the past 6 years.

Chief Pilot:

Section 119.67 requires 3 years of experience as PIC of a large

airplane operated under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter when the

certificate holder operates large airplanes. If the certificate

holder uses only small airplanes in its operation, the experience may

be obtained in either large or small airplanes. For first time

applicants, both §§ 119.67 and 119.71 require that the 3 years PIC

experience must have been obtained within the past 6 years.

Director of Maintenance:

Section 119.67 requires 3 years of experience within the last 6

years in maintaining or repairing aircraft. Section 119.71 requires 3

years of experience within any amount of time in maintaining or

repairing aircraft. The requirement in § 119.67(c)(4)(i) that

the director of maintenance have experience in maintaining "large

aircraft" has been changed to "aircraft with 10 or more passenger

seats" to provide for maintenance experience acquired by work for an

affected commuter.

Chief Inspector:

The requirement in § 119.67(d)(2) and (d)(3) that the chief

inspector have experience in maintaining "large aircraft" has been

changed to "aircraft with 10 or more passenger seats" to provide for

maintenance experience acquired by work for an affected commuter.

Derivation and distribution tables. The purpose of the revisions to

part 121, Subparts A, B, C, and D, and part 135, Subpart A, is to

delete all sections which have been moved to part 119, such as

requirements using outdated terminology. Subparts B, C, and D, and

certain sections of Subpart A of part 121 are entirely deleted as well

as certain sections of subpart A of part 135 because these

requirements are either obsolete or have been moved to proposed part

119. SFAR 38-2 terminates 15 months after the date of publication of

this final rule and many of its provisions have been moved to part

119. Also part 127 is deleted as discussed above under "§ 119.25-

Rotorcraft operations." Table 3 is a derivation table, showing the

origin and current source in SFAR 38-2, part 121, or part 135 of many

of the new sections in part 119. Table 4 is a distribution table,

showing the location in part 119 for each section removed from part

121, part 135, and SFAR 38-2.


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


119.25(b) SFAR 38-2, Section 4(c), 5(c), and (d) and new


Subpart C

119.31 SFAR 38-2, Section 1(c), 2(a) and (b), 121.3, and


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

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


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



Part 121 Replaced by:

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 Replaced by:

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)

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 Replaced by:

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