VI.B. Part 119--Certification: Air Carriers and Commercial
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
The requirement in § 119.67(d)(2) and (d)(3) that the chief
inspector have experience in maintaining "large aircraft" has been
changed to "aircraft with 10 or more passenger seats" to provide for
maintenance experience acquired by work for an affected commuter.
Derivation and distribution tables. The purpose of the revisions to
part 121, Subparts A, B, C, and D, and part 135, Subpart A, is to
delete all sections which have been moved to part 119, such as
requirements using outdated terminology. Subparts B, C, and D, and
certain sections of Subpart A of part 121 are entirely deleted as well
as certain sections of subpart A of part 135 because these
requirements are either obsolete or have been moved to proposed part
119. SFAR 38-2 terminates 15 months after the date of publication of
this final rule and many of its provisions have been moved to part
119. Also part 127 is deleted as discussed above under "§ 119.25-
Rotorcraft operations." Table 3 is a derivation table, showing the
origin and current source in SFAR 38-2, part 121, or part 135 of many
of the new sections in part 119. Table 4 is a distribution table,
showing the location in part 119 for each section removed from part
121, part 135, and SFAR 38-2.
Table 3-- DERIVATION TABLE FOR PART 119
New Section Based On
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)
119.7(a) SFAR 38-2, Section 3
119.7(b) 121.23, 121.43
119.9(b) New language
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
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,
119.33(b) SFAR 38-2, Section 1(c), 2(a) and (b), 3, 121.3,
119.33(c) SFAR 38-2, Section 1(c), 2(a) and (b), 3, 121.3,
119.35(a) 121.26, 121.47(a), 135.11(a)
119.35(b) 121.26, 121.47(a), 135.11(a)
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(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(b) New language
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(b) New language
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(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
119.63(a) New language
119.63(b) New language
119.65(d) 121.61 and new language
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(b) 121.59(b), 135.37(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
Table 4 -- DISTRIBUTION TABLE FOR PART 121, PART 135, AND SFAR 38-2
SECTIONS BEING REPLACED BY PART 119
Part 121 Replaced by:
121.3 119.21(a); 119.31; 119.33
121.25(a) 119.37(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g)
121.26 119.35(a) and (b)
121.27(a)(2) 119.39(a) and (b)
121.29(a) 119.61(a) and (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)
121.53(c) 119.61(a) and (b)
121.57(a) 119.55(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e)
121.57(b) 119.55(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e)
121.59(b) 119.65(b) and (c); 119.69(b) and (c)
121.61(b) 119.67(b) and (e)
121.75(b) 119.43(a) and (b)
121.79(b) 119.51(b) and (e)
121.81(a) 119.59(a), (b), and (c)
Part 135 Replaced by:
135.5 119.31; 119.33(a), (b), and (c)
135.11(a) 119.35(a) and (b)
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)
135.17(c) 119.51(d) and (e)
135.17(d) 119.51(b), (d), and (e)
135.39(c) 119.67(c); 199.71(e)
135.39(d) 119.67(e); 119.71(f)
135.63(a)(2) 119.43(a) and (b)
135.73 119.59(a) and (b)
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