[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54520-54588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-23021]



[[Page 54519]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Federal Aviation Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



14 CFR Parts 21, 61, 91, et al.



Regulation of Fractional Aircraft Ownership Programs and On-Demand 
Operations; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2003 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 54520]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 21, 61, 91, 119, 125, 135, and 142

[Docket No. FAA-2001-10047; Amdt. Nos. 21-84, 61-109, 91-274, 119-7, 
125-44, 135-82, 142-5]
RIN 2120-AH06


Regulation of Fractional Aircraft Ownership Programs and On-
Demand Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is updating and 
revising the regulations governing operations of aircraft in fractional 
ownership programs. The FAA has determined that the current regulations 
do not adequately define fractional ownership programs and do not 
clearly allocate responsibility and authority for safety and compliance 
with the regulations. This final rule defines fractional ownership 
programs and their various participants, allocates responsibility and 
authority for safety of flight operations for purposes of compliance 
with the regulations, and ensures that fractional ownership program 
aircraft operations will maintain a high level of safety. These 
regulations provide a level of safety for fractional ownership programs 
equivalent to certain regulations that apply to on-demand operators. 
The rule also revises some requirements that apply to on-demand 
operators that meet certain criteria. The revisions permit these 
operators to follow an alternate means of compliance for certain 
commercial operations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 17, 2003. A person who conducted flights 
before November 17, 2003 under a program that meets the definition of a 
fractional ownership program in Sec.  91.1001 may not conduct such 
flights after December 17, 2004 unless it has obtained management 
specifications under this final rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Hakala Perfetti, Flight 
Standards Service (AFS-200), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-
3760, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

General Abbreviations Used in This Preamble

AFM Aircraft Flight Manual
ATC Air Traffic Control
ATP Airline Transport Pilot
CAMP Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program
DOM Director of Maintenance
FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act
FL Flight Level
FOARC Fractional Ownership Aviation Rulemaking Committee
FSDO Flight Standards District Office
GPWS Ground Proximity Warning System
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
IFR Instrument Flight Rules
IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions
MEL Minimum Equipment List
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NM Nautical Miles
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PIC Pilot in Command
RVSM Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Airspace
SIC Second in Command
STC Supplemental Type Certificate
TCAS Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System
VFR Visual Flight Rules
VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions
VREF Designated Landing Approach Speed

History and Background

    In 1986, Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. (EJA), created a new program 
that offered aircraft owners increased flexibility in the ownership and 
operation of aircraft by individuals and corporations. The program 
offered shared aircraft ownership (fractional ownership), and provided 
for the management of the aircraft by an aircraft management company. 
Aircraft owners participating in the program agreed to share their 
aircraft with others having an ownership interest in that aircraft, as 
well as to lease their aircraft to other owners in the program that did 
not have an interest in that aircraft. The aircraft owners used the 
common management company to maintain the aircraft and administer the 
leasing of the aircraft among the owners. An FAA regional determination 
allowed this fractional ownership program to operate under 14 CFR part 
91.
    Since that time, the number of companies offering fractional 
ownership programs has grown. During the 1990s this growth was 
substantial and sustained. As of early 2000, the leading fractional 
ownership programs managed approximately 465 aircraft on behalf of 
3,446 shareowners. By the end of 2001 there were over 3,500 owners of 
more than 5,000 shares of 650 aircraft. Growth in fractional ownership 
programs is expected to continue to increase.
    While most fractional ownership programs are conducted under 14 CFR 
part 91, some are conducted under 14 CFR part 135. Of those operating 
under part 91, the FAA believes that most follow the ``best practices'' 
of corporate aviation. FAA and NTSB accident data for U.S.-registered 
turbine powered aircraft during the period from 1990--2001 shows that 
fractional ownership aircraft operations are conducted with a high 
degree of safety.
    As fractional ownership programs have grown in size, complexity and 
number, there has been much controversy within the aviation community 
whether the FAA should regulate these programs under part 91 or under 
part 135 on-demand operations. Also, the FAA has had concerns about 
accountability and responsibility for compliance and about maintaining 
a high level of safety. Consequently, the FAA continued its analysis of 
the appropriate regulatory environment for these programs.

Operational Control and Regulatory Responsibility

    The FAA's objective is to establish the appropriate level of 
regulatory oversight to ensure safe aircraft operations. The FAA 
regulations have always contained different levels of FAA oversight 
depending on operational control and compliance responsibility. Airline 
passengers exercise no control over and bear no responsibility for the 
airworthiness or operation of the aircraft on which they are 
passengers. The air carrier exercises control of the operation and 
bears responsibility for compliance with the regulations. Because the 
air carrier is a commercial enterprise in the business of air 
transportation for the public, the FAA imposes on the air carrier 
stringent regulations and oversight under part 121 or part 135, as 
appropriate.
    In contrast, aircraft owners flying aboard aircraft they own or 
lease exercise full control over and bear full responsibility for the 
airworthiness and operation of their aircraft. Under these 
circumstances, the FAA has determined that the appropriate level of 
oversight is provided by the regulations in part 91, which are 
generally less stringent than those of part 121 or part 135. Part 91 
regulations cover what is commonly called general aviation, which 
includes individual pilot/owner operations and corporate owner 
operations.
    Business aviation in large and turbine-powered multiengine 
airplanes is regulated under part 91, subpart F. In creating subpart F 
(originally subpart D; 37 FR 14758, July 25, 1972), the FAA continued 
its long-standing policy that corporations may operate their aircraft 
under part 91. The FAA allowed for different arrangements in the loan,

[[Page 54521]]

exchange, and sharing of the aircraft. Current Sec.  91.501(b)(4) 
allows a person to operate his or her aircraft ``for his personal 
transportation, or the transportation of his guests when no charge, 
assessment, or fee is made for the transportation.'' Current Sec.  
91.501(b)(5) allows for the carriage of ``officials, employees, guests, 
and property of a company on an airplane operated by that company * * * 
when the carriage is within the scope of, and incidental to, the 
business of the company * * * Current Sec.  91.501(b)(6) allows for 
time-sharing arrangements, interchange agreements, and joint ownership 
arrangements. Some of these arrangements include the use of a 
management company that provides maintenance and other services to the 
owners.
    A consideration for applicability under part 91 in any of these 
arrangements is that the corporation cannot be established solely for 
the purpose of providing transportation to a parent corporation, 
subsidiary, or other corporation. In such a case, the corporation 
operating the aircraft would be in the business of transportation and 
would have to hold an air carrier certificate under part 121 or part 
135, as appropriate.
    Fractional ownership programs have some of the elements of 
traditional management services companies, but because of the size and 
complexity of today's fractional ownership programs, the part 91 rules 
are not adequate. The part 121 and part 135 rules are not appropriate 
either because those rules are directed at air carriers and other 
entities that hold themselves out to provide transportation to the 
general public.

Fractional Ownership Aviation Rulemaking Committee

    In October 1999, the FAA convened a special aviation rulemaking 
committee, the Fractional Ownership Aviation Rulemaking Committee 
(FOARC), pursuant to the Administrator's authority under 49 U.S.C. 
106(p)(5), to address the issues surrounding the regulation of 
fractional ownership program operations. Pursuant to the order of 
October 6, 1999, that established the FOARC, the committee's objective 
was to ``propose such revisions to the Federal Aviation Regulations and 
associated guidance material as may be appropriate with respect to 
fractional ownership programs.''
    The FOARC was comprised of 27 members selected by the FAA as 
representative of the various constituencies interested in regulation 
of fractional ownership program operations. Designated advisers and 
counsel assisted the FOARC.
    FOARC members represented on-demand charter operators, fractional 
ownership program managers and owners, aircraft manufacturers, 
corporate flight departments, traditional aircraft management 
companies, aircraft financing and insurance companies, and industry 
trade associations. Representatives of the FAA, the U.S. Department of 
Transportation and foreign civil aviation authorities were also 
included.
    The FOARC met for nine days in November and December 1999. Within 
the FOARC's meeting schedule, two days were set aside for public 
hearings to provide the public an opportunity to comment or present 
positions on this issue. Notice of these public meetings was provided 
in the Federal Register (64 FR 66229, November 24, 1999) and through 
the media. The FAA reviewed and considered all material presented by 
participants at the public meetings. The FOARC presented its initial 
recommendations to the FAA on February 23, 2000. Those recommendations 
provided the basis of the FAA's NPRM, published in the Federal Register 
on July 18, 2001 (66 FR 37520). The comment period for the NPRM ended 
on November 16, 2001. The FAA is issuing this final rule, based on the 
recommendations of the FOARC committee and the FAA's consideration of 
the public comments received on the NPRM.

Summary of Final Rule

    This rule establishes a new subpart K in part 91 to cover 
fractional ownership operations. The new Subpart K clarifies what 
qualifies as a fractional ownership program, clarifies who has 
operational control, defines operational control responsibilities, 
codifies many of the ``best practices'' now being used voluntarily in 
fractional ownership programs, and incorporates many of the safety 
standards of part 121 and part 135. By this rulemaking, the FAA 
establishes safety standards to maintain the safety record of current 
fractional ownership programs and to ensure that new fractional 
ownership programs will also meet a high level of safety.
    In brief, new subpart K accomplishes the following:
    (1) It establishes the criteria for qualifying as a fractional 
ownership program.
    (2) It establishes that fractional owners and the management 
company share operational control of the aircraft and delineates 
operational control responsibilities.
    (3) It establishes regulatory safety standards for operations under 
fractional ownership programs, including management operations, 
maintenance, training, crewmember flight and duty requirements, and 
others.
    This rulemaking also revises certain requirements in part 135 on-
demand operations. Many of the requirements in new subpart K of part 91 
are based on requirements for on-demand operations in part 135. In the 
process of reviewing part 135 requirements, the committee and the FAA 
determined that some of the current part 135 requirements needed to be 
updated in accordance with new technology and other changes. The FOARC 
studied the best practices of the fractional ownership programs to 
determine under what circumstances part 135 operations could use those 
practices as an alternate means of compliance with part 135 standards. 
For example, FOARC recommended that on-demand operators be allowed to 
land at airports without weather reporting facilities, provided the 
flight plan includes an alternate airport that has such facilities and 
they carry additional fuel to fly to that alternate airport. Further, 
this eligible on-demand operation must provide a 2-pilot crew with 
increased pilot experience and that meets crew pairing standards. In 
addition proving test requirements for both fractional ownership 
programs and part 135 on-demand operations were reviewed and amended. A 
proving test requirement was added for fractional ownership programs 
and the requirement for multiple proving tests for part 135 operations 
was amended.
    Specific requirements in subpart K and revisions to part 135 are 
discussed in detail in the public comment discussion that follows.

Discussion of Public Comment

    The FAA received approximately 230 comments in response to the 
NPRM. Approximately 60 comments specifically address a concern related 
to noise and environmental issues at Santa Monica airport, 30 comments 
are from aircraft dispatchers, and 28 comments are from individual 
pilots. The rest of the comments are from major industry associations, 
aviation companies and interested individuals. The comments can be 
reviewed on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

Commenter Abbreviations Used in This Preamble

ADF Airline Dispatchers Federation
AOPA Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

[[Page 54522]]

Avex The New Avex, Inc.
CAA Civil Aviation Authority of the United Kingdom
EHANAC East Hampton Airport Noise Abatement Committee
EJA Executive Jet Aviation, Inc.
Flexjet Bombardier Business Jet Solutions, Inc.
GAMA General Aviation Manufacturers Association
GM General Motors Air Transportation Section
IBT International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO
NATA National Air Transportation Association
NBAA National Business Aviation Association
NWJ New World Jet Corporation
PASS Professional Airways Systems Specialists
SAMA Small Aircraft Manufacturers Association
Teamsters Teamsters Miscellaneous and Industrial Workers Union, 
Local No. 284

General Support

    Several commenters express general support for the NPRM and for the 
work of the FOARC. Aviation Resources Management states that it fully 
supports the proposed rules and that the process used in their 
development was not only fair and impartial but was a remarkable 
example of accomplishment through cooperation between industry and 
government. Eclipse Aviation states that as a manufacturer of an 
aircraft that will be used extensively in fractional ownership 
programs, Eclipse strongly endorses the safety measures provided to the 
fractional customer by proposed subpart K to part 91. General Aviation 
Manufacturers Association (GAMA) states that as fractionally owned 
aircraft programs have already demonstrated their safety and efficiency 
while operating under part 91, it strongly supports the new rule. GAMA 
adds that these programs benefit the traveling public by dramatically 
increasing their options for air transportation and that the growth of 
these programs should not be hindered.
    Some commenters identified specific parts of the proposed rules 
that they believe will be particularly effective. Robert E. Breiling 
Associates believes the proposed landing requirements, weather criteria 
for approach and departure and more realistic night operation 
requirements would give new flexibility to part 135 operators. These 
proposed requirements would not only allow them to operate to and from 
many other airports and runways previously not available to them. The 
proposed requirements would also help reduce traffic at some of the 
more congested airports. Alpha Flying, Inc. strongly supports the 
flight and duty time requirements, and runway length and weather 
reporting requirements in the proposed rule. Alpha believes the 
proposed requirements could provide relief to charter operators who 
have been unnecessarily burdened operationally and economically by 
rules that are out-of-date. Alpha believes that weather reporting 
services now available, vast aircraft equipment improvements and 
aircraft certification rule changes that have been put in place since 
the runway length and weather reporting rules were written justify the 
proposed changes.
    A flight operations manager comments that it is important that the 
people who developed the proposed rule actively work with the FAA to 
develop Handbook guidance for compliance when the proposal becomes a 
final rule.
    FAA Response: The FAA appreciates the support of these commenters. 
In the final rule the FAA has tried to achieve the goals of FOARC, 
while carefully considering the comments from both supporters and those 
who oppose the FOARC proposals. After considering all the comments on 
the specific proposals and further research by FAA experts, the FAA has 
made some changes in the final rule. These changes and the reasons for 
each are discussed below under the specific topics.
    In regard to implementation of the final rule, the FAA has set up 
an implementation team to plan for development of guidance material, 
inspector training, inspector assignment, and oversight and 
surveillance policies. The FAA plans to complete these products by the 
effective date of this rule. The FAA is committed to working closely 
with industry to implement this final rule.

General Opposition

    Most of the commenters who state general opposition to the proposed 
rule take the position that fractional ownership programs are 
essentially on-demand operations that the FAA should regulate under 
part 135. Generally, these commenters believe that the Committee and 
the FAA fail to recognize that the program manager of a fractional 
ownership program is essentially promoting on-demand service. In the 
NPRM, the program manager is the entity that sets up a fractional 
ownership program and that hires an individual to run the program.
    Approximately 28 commenters identify themselves as pilots with 
fractional ownership programs, of whom at least 10 are with EJA. Most 
of the pilots oppose the proposed inclusion of fractional ownership in 
part 91. They believe the FAA should require fractional ownership 
programs to operate under part 135. In addition to general opposition, 
some pilots made specific comments that the FAA addresses under the 
appropriate issue or section.
    The Civil Aviation Authority of the United Kingdom (CAA) states 
that ``. . .the proposal appears to be contrary to the provisions of 
the Chicago Convention which defines a commercial transport operation 
as an aircraft operation involving transport of passengers, cargo or 
mail for remuneration or hire.'' The French Direction 
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile submitted a similar 
comment.
    One commenter cites a U.S. Federal Circuit court ruling that held a 
fractional ownership program to be a ``commercial operation'' for 
certain tax purposes and questions how the FAA can ignore this ruling.
    Jet Sales & Services, Inc., states that the preamble states no 
justification to require increased regulation. This commenter states 
that a group of aircraft owners should have the same rights and 
privileges as those who can afford total and individual ownership.
    While not opposing the entire NPRM, the National Transportation 
Safety Board (NTSB) states its concern for any part 135 changes in this 
rulemaking. The NTSB states that it will withhold judgment about the 
adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed subpart K requirements 
until it has had the opportunity to monitor accidents, incidents, and 
other developments related to fractional ownership.
    Some commenters state that the FAA should issue another NPRM before 
issuing a final rule on fractional ownership. Commenters think this is 
necessary for various reasons, including the size of the NPRM and the 
lack of balance of the FOARC.
    FAA Response: The FAA carefully considered the question of where to 
place the rules governing fractional ownership programs. It studied 
current fractional ownership programs, finding that this segment of 
aviation has a very high safety record through compliance with 
voluntary safety standards that in many cases exceed the regulatory 
standards. It is the FAA's goal in this rulemaking to maintain this 
safety record.
    In determining the appropriate regulatory part for fractional 
ownership programs, the FAA recognizes that fractional ownership 
programs contain elements of private ownership and use of a management 
company that are similar to a traditional management company operation 
under part 91. The

[[Page 54523]]

role of the management company is to provide aviation expertise and 
services to the owner and the program manager does not hold out to the 
public to provide air transportation. Fractional ownership programs 
differ from the traditional management company model in the size and 
complexity of the program operations, reducing the individual owner's 
ability to exercise operational control. Therefore, the FAA determined 
that the appropriate approach is to regulate fractional ownership 
programs under part 91, but to define operational control 
responsibilities and procedures and to prescribe added safety 
requirements appropriate to the size and complexity of those 
operations. These standards mirror corporate best practices, the 
voluntary standards used by existing fractional ownership programs, and 
the regulatory standards of part 121 and 135, as appropriate. In 
response to the CAA and the French Direction Generale de l'Aviation 
Civile comments, the FAA views fractional ownership programs to be 
private operations and therefore not subject to the commercial 
transport standards and definition. A U.S. federal circuit court 
determined fractional ownership programs are commercial operations for 
tax purposes. See Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. U.S., 125 F.2d 1463 
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Tax law does not govern safety rules. The FAA 
considers fractional ownership programs private operations for safety 
and operational control purposes.
    The changes made to part 135 in this rulemaking are based on a 
comparison of current part 135 requirements to part 91 fractional 
ownership and corporate programs. Part 135 was amended where safety 
could be maintained while offering an alternative method to achieve the 
same safety goal. These procedures and amendments were based in part on 
the best practices and demonstrated safety record of corporate aviation 
and fractional ownership programs.
    Like the NTSB, the FAA intends to closely monitor both part 91, 
subpart K, and part 135 operations following the implementation of this 
rule to identify any trends or safety concerns related to the 
requirements of this rule.
    Some commenters encouraged the FAA to issue a supplemental NPRM. 
The FAA is issuing a final rule because the changes made to the rule 
language are within the scope of what the FAA proposed in the NPRM. 
Commenters made many helpful suggestions, including suggested technical 
edits and cross-references, some of which the FAA has incorporated into 
the rule. Comments that are beyond the scope of the NPRM, would result 
in a substantive change to the rules, or identify new issues are being 
considered for future rulemaking. The FAA has determined that it is in 
the public interest to publish a final rule now to establish and 
maintain a safety standard for fractional ownership programs.

Extension of Comment Period

    Several commenters asked the FAA to extend the comment period to 
allow more time for public input. NTSB stated that the September 11, 
2001, events have raised public concern about the security of air 
carrier operations and will likely further increase the demand for 
fractional ownership and the potential for safety issues associated 
with expanded operations. The NTSB asked for a 90-day extension of time 
to evaluate the proposed changes and the related safety issues. The 
National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) and the National Air 
Transportation Association (NATA) noted that since September 11, the 
Nation, and the aviation community in particular, have directed many 
resources to restore our air transportation system. NBAA and NATA 
requested an extra 30 days to allow all interested parties more time to 
prepare well-developed, thoughtful comments on the proposed regulation. 
An individual sought a nine-month time extension to allow the pilots 
affected by these proposed changes, but excluded from FOARC, to 
adequately review the safety implications of this NPRM and suggest 
changes.
    FAA Response: In response to the commenter requests, the FAA 
extended the comment period to November 16, 2001 (66 FR 52878, October 
18, 2001).

FOARC's Membership Balance

    Many commenters state that the Committee did not represent all 
potentially interested parties. They specifically mentioned pilots, 
fractional owners, airports and airport community interest groups. They 
also wrote that publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by 
itself did not overcome the built in bias of the Committee.
    One commenter states that the FOARC was not ``fairly balanced'' as 
required by 14 CFR 11.27 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 
because pilots did not participate in the process.
    The Teamsters state that the FOARC consisted essentially of three 
groups. First, fractional providers who feared that they would be 
regulated under part 135. Second, on-demand part 135 operators that see 
fractional owners as running a similar operation but under less 
stringent, and therefore less costly, rules. Third, corporate flight 
departments and their trade organizations that feared negative 
consequences for them if the FAA were to choose to regulate fractional 
operators under part 135. This commenter suggests there would have been 
no committee consensus without the proposed changes to part 135 that 
benefited persons currently operating under that part. This commenter 
also questions why a committee set up to address the issue of 
fractional ownership would have anything to do with part 135 
operations. Other commenters make the same point.
    NATA states that a notice of public meetings was published in the 
Federal Register. NATA also states that inferences made by some 
commenters to this rulemaking about ``backroom'' deals are misleading. 
The commenter points out that such inferences ignore the opportunity 
for public involvement in the process and the presence of DOT and FAA 
representatives at all FOARC meetings.
    FAA Response: The Fractional Ownership Aviation Rulemaking 
Committee was established by an order issued by the FAA Administrator 
on October 6, 1999, pursuant to the Administrator's authority under 49 
U.S.C. 106(p)(5). This section states that ``The Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) does not apply to the Council or such 
aviation rulemaking committees as the Administrator shall designate.'' 
Therefore the activities of the FOARC were not subject to the 
requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Nevertheless, the 
FAA balanced the makeup of the committee so that the FAA could learn 
the various perspectives of persons involved in fractional ownership 
operations and other segments of the aviation community that the 
proposed regulations may affect. This included part 135 operators, 
aircraft manufacturers, corporate flight departments, aircraft 
financing and insurance companies, and industry trade associations. 
About the issue of pilot representation, to the FAA's knowledge, only 
one fractional ownership program has union representatives for a 
portion of its pilots. Therefore, there is no single, recognized 
organization that could speak for fractional ownership pilots across-
the-board. Nevertheless, there were individual pilots on the FOARC, 
representing both fractional ownership programs and part 135 operators.
    In addition, as described earlier in this preamble, the FAA held a 
public meeting to invite the views of other interested parties. 
Finally, the FAA

[[Page 54524]]

published the NPRM and provided a public comment period in accordance 
with the Administrative Procedure Act. This comment period allowed all 
interested parties, whether they were FOARC members or not, to provide 
added insight, comments, and suggestions for changes to the proposal. 
The FAA received over 230 public comments and has carefully reviewed 
the many views and suggestions provided in those comments. Therefore, 
the FAA does not agree that this rulemaking suffered from a lack of 
balance or a lack of opportunity for all interested parties to express 
their views.

Environment and Noise

    Many commenters are concerned about the environmental and noise 
impacts of this proposed rule on local airports. Most of these comments 
(approximately 60) are from organizations and individuals in the 
neighborhood of the Santa Monica, CA, Airport. Commenters from the 
vicinity of Flying Cloud Airport in Minnesota and East Hampton Airport 
in New York also address this issue.
    Most of these commenters state that the FAA must comply with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) before proceeding to a final 
rule. An individual asks that the FAA conduct ``an environmental 
assessment or environmental impact statement to fully and fairly define 
and disclose the environmental impacts that will flow'' from the 
proposed rule. Santa Monica Airport, the North Westdale Neighborhood 
Association, the East Hampton Airport Noise Abatement Committee 
(EHANAC), and Friends of Sunset Park Neighborhood Association believe 
that the FAA should study the impact of fractional ownership on 
communities and schools that are near general aviation airports. 
Residents of Sunset Park are concerned that altering the 60 percent 
rule and creating subpart K will significantly increase the volume of 
business jet traffic, bringing with it an increase in air and noise 
pollution. The Los Angeles Unified School District is concerned about 
regulatory changes that may increase noise levels and air emissions at 
several of their schools underlying the approach to Santa Monica 
Airport.
    An individual states that relaxing an existing limit on runway use 
and requirement for instrument flight rules (IFR) destination airport 
weather reporting would authorize a whole new class of airports to be 
opened to a new class of aircraft. This would increase noise and 
adversely impact the quality of the human environment for unknown 
numbers of individuals. This commenter does not believe that this 
rulemaking qualifies for a ``categorical exclusion'' from the 
requirements of NEPA, stating that ``The FAA has an affirmative 
obligation to disclose adverse environmental impacts that will flow 
from an agency action.''
    NATA submitted a comment in response to these comments stating that 
the FAA was not obligated to do an environmental assessment or prepare 
an environmental impact statement in situations where the FAA is 
promulgating safety rules that are not likely to have a significant 
impact on the environment. The commenter points out that the FAA is not 
responsible for the growth of fractional ownership programs. According 
to the commenter, if the rulemaking results in a greater use of small 
airports, this may have a positive effect because of a more efficient 
allocation of aircraft activity among large and small airports.
    FAA Response: The FAA understands its obligations under NEPA and 
takes its responsibilities seriously. The FAA based its determination 
that this rulemaking qualifies for a categorical exclusion from the 
requirement to prepare an Environmental Assessment under NEPA on the 
instructions in FAA Order 1050.1D, Policies and Procedures for 
Considering Environmental Impacts. Appendix 4, section 4, lists 
issuance of ``regulations, standards, and exemptions'' as one of the 
categorically excluded actions that the FAA's Associate Administrator 
for Regulation and Certification may take. As with most of FAA's 
operating rules, any environmental impact would come not from issuing 
the rule, but from approving specific operations under the rules. For 
example, Order 1050.1D spells out how the FAA considers environmental 
impacts when issuing operations specifications for part 121 and part 
135 operators. The FAA normally prepares an environmental assessment 
before issuing operations specifications for scheduled operations. For 
on-demand operations, an environmental assessment would not be prepared 
unless the proposed operation would significantly change the operating 
environment of the airport that serves as the home base for the 
operator. NEPA requires the FAA to consider the ``foreseeable 
environmental impacts'' of its actions. Therefore it is difficult for 
the FAA to assess impacts on destination airports for particular on-
demand operators, because those destinations are unknown at the time of 
the approval. Similarly, for fractional ownership programs, it would be 
difficult to identify destination airports, since fractional owners may 
choose to go to any airport. Again, the FAA can only look at the 
potential impacts on the home base airports. It has been determined 
that management specifications will be treated the same as operations 
specifications for NEPA purposes. Therefore, the same principles will 
apply.
    On the weather reporting issue, the FAA does not expect a 
significant impact because the number of part 135 operators who can do 
this will be limited. The rule applies only if the airport has no 
weather reporting but has instrument approach procedures, the operator 
is authorized to conduct IFR operations, the weather is instrument 
meteorological conditions, and the operator meets the eligible on-
demand conditions. Therefore the FAA cannot make an estimate of the 
number of operations that would be increased. Fractional ownership 
programs can currently operate into airports without weather reporting. 
This rulemaking imposes extra restrictions that could limit some 
operations.
    The requirements for performance planning could potentially 
increase the number of airports that part 135 operators could use, but 
would impose limits on some part 91 fractional operations that can 
currently use any suitable airport runway. Under the final rule, only 
eligible on-demand operators under part 135 would be able to take 
advantage of reduced runway requirements and only under certain 
conditions. The changes to the performance rules will restrict some 
fractional ownership operations, which currently have no regulatory 
limits. The FAA cannot estimate the number of airports or operations 
that would be affected, as performance planning incorporates many 
variables and, because of the on-demand nature of these operations.

FAA Oversight and Staffing

    Professional Airways System Specialists (PASS) is concerned that 
the proposed rule would not require the necessary oversight and 
surveillance by FAA safety inspectors to ensure the level of safety 
desired. The management specifications, training manual and program 
managers operating manual need to be clear and approved by the 
Administrator so there is little controversy on what the program 
managers, flightcrews, maintenance personnel and fractional owners are 
required to do to ensure compliance with the regulations. Similarly, 
Style Air comments that the FAA currently does not have sufficient 
staff to service part 135 operators efficiently. This commenter 
believes that the addition of

[[Page 54525]]

trained inspectors should be addressed before any implementation of new 
regulations, and that specific procedures for FAA oversight and 
enforcement should be provided in the new regulations. An FAA inspector 
expresses concern over ``how the field inspection will make a 
determination as to the type of operator he/she is conducting a 
surveillance on * * *''
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the success of these regulations 
is dependent on the quality of the oversight and surveillance provided 
by FAA inspectors and local Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO's). 
Therefore the FAA has established an implementation team that is 
developing standards and guidance for the use of both Headquarters and 
field personnel who will be responsible for reviewing fractional 
ownership programs policies and procedures, approving training 
programs, and issuing management specifications. The implementation 
team has reviewed staffing levels and qualification standards for 
aviation safety inspectors and made recommendations to ensure that 
inspectors have the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to 
oversee fractional ownership programs. The implementation team is 
working with PASS on assessing these staffing needs. In addition, the 
team is drafting specific guidance for field offices and inspectors to 
provide instructions and criteria for conducting the reviews and 
approvals required before fractional ownership programs may operate 
under subpart K. The level of oversight and surveillance and inspection 
activities provided to specific companies will be appropriate to the 
size and complexity of the operations being conducted and will be 
comparable to that provided to part 135 on-demand operations. The FAA 
believes that these implementation plans and products fully address the 
concerns expressed by the commenters.

Owner-Piloted Multiple-Owner Aircraft (See also Sec.  91.1001)

    Several comments focus on how the rule would affect co-ownership 
arrangements of aircraft by pilots, and owner/pilot operation of 
aircraft.
    Four commenters (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), 
GAMA, Lawyer Pilots Bar Assoc. and NATA), state that the rule or the 
preamble should clearly distinguish between the multiple owner/pilot 
and similar arrangements that would continue to be regulated under the 
existing part 91 and those arrangements that would be considered 
fractional ownership programs and be regulated under the proposed 
subpart K.
    NBAA states that the FAA should account for aircraft ownership 
mechanisms other than fractional ownership programs in the final rule. 
NBAA believes that any programs that do not precisely fall within the 
definition of fractional ownership should be subject to regulations 
other than subpart K. An example would be a company that provides 
aircraft management services for aircraft that are flown solely by the 
owner. NBAA is concerned that the qualifications under Sec.  91.1001(b) 
would inadvertently require owner-flown shared aircraft programs that 
use a management company to schedule aircraft among owners to comply 
with subpart K, when they would be better addressed as flying clubs. 
NBAA provides regulatory changes that would further clarify the types 
of operations subject to subpart K and prevent the inadvertent 
application of this regulation on other ownership and service options 
such as flying clubs, joint ownerships, time-shares and traditional 
aircraft management.
    Another commenter, the Small Aircraft Manufacturers Association 
(SAMA), notes that the proposed subpart K defines a fractional 
ownership program in a way that would include owner-pilot shared 
ownership programs in which the program manager does not offer or 
provide the flightcrews. According to the commenter, owner-pilot shared 
ownership programs that would technically meet the proposed definition 
of a fractional ownership program under Sec.  91.1001(b) did not exist 
when the FOARC made its recommendations to FAA in early 2000. The FOARC 
did not hypothesize their formation and therefore did not consider 
their appropriate regulation. These owner-pilot shared ownership 
programs have since been established, generally providing piston-
powered single engine airplanes, and currently are appropriately 
regulated under part 91, without reference to subpart F. It appears 
that neither the FOARC nor the FAA intended to regulate these programs 
under subpart K. According to the commenter, these programs are similar 
to flying clubs, partnerships and management services arrangements, but 
do not exactly match any of these traditional forms of shared aircraft 
ownership.
    The goal of this commenter's proposed amendment is to avoid 
changing the regulation of owner-pilot shared ownership programs that 
are permissible today under part 91. Because these programs provide 
safety benefits, the FAA should facilitate the emergence of these forms 
of small aircraft ownership and operation by clearly describing in the 
rule and in related guidance materials activities under such programs. 
This commenter suggests specific final rule preamble language that 
would clarify that the intent of the rule is not to cover the types of 
operations described by the commenter. In contrast, The New Avex, Inc., 
(AVEX) states that the proposal is short sighted because it excludes 
the opportunity for individuals to share ownership of light, single-
engine turboprops.
    Similarly, NATA and Bombardier Business Jet Solutions, Inc., 
(Flexjet) understand that some systems of aircraft ownership and use 
have been created, or soon will be created, that involve only owners 
that intend to act as the pilot during the owner's use of the aircraft. 
Some of these programs may include elements commonly found in 
fractional ownership programs, such as multiple owners of an individual 
aircraft, a single aircraft manager, and a dry-lease pool of multiple 
aircraft. Although these programs may technically fit the applicability 
requirements of subpart K, these commenters do not believe that such 
programs should be subject to subpart K. According to the commenters, a 
program that consists solely of owners that will always be the pilots 
when they use their aircraft is likely to appeal to a far different 
owner than would the fractional ownership programs that were the focus 
of FOARC's and FAA's review. Such a program does not require the 
enhanced provisions of subpart K and would more appropriately be 
regulated under existing regulations.
    SAMA, NATA and Flexjet believe that the fundamental difference 
between a pilot-owner program and fractional programs as envisioned by 
subpart K is that the program manager in a pilot-owner program is not 
responsible for providing any pilots. One of these commenters 
recommends excluding exclusively pilot-owner programs from subpart K by 
revising the definition of fractional ownership program management 
services in proposed Sec.  91.1001(b)(7). Under this recommended 
definition, subpart K would apply if the manager provided even a single 
pilot to any aircraft owner. However, if one of the owners served as 
the pilot in all program operations, the program would not be subject 
to subpart K. Another commenter recommends amending Sec.  91.1001(b)(7) 
to include ``the offering or provision of flight crews'' as well as 
providing related guidance material that would apply subpart K only to 
shared ownership programs where the program manager offers or provides 
the flight crew.

[[Page 54526]]

    Similarly, AOPA states that, while there is a presumption that 
subpart K operations include or require a professional flight crew 
provided by the program manager, this is not specifically stated in the 
regulation. Therefore, AOPA proposes that a sixth criteria be added 
under Sec.  91.1001(b)(1) to state the requirement that professional 
flight crew services must be provided by the program manager. In 
support of this sixth criteria, AOPA also proposes that Sec.  
91.1001(b)(7) be further defined to include a provision for a 
professional flight crew. AOPA believes that the development of subpart 
K did not envision or intend to regulate smaller piston powered single- 
and multi-engine aircraft that otherwise meet the five criteria of 
Sec.  91.1001, but do not use professional program pilots and that 
providing a flight crew is an important distinction between a multiple 
aircraft ownership arrangement versus a fractional ownership program.
    The Lawyer Pilots Bar Association states that the NPRM clearly 
intends to apply to fractional programs in which paid professional 
crews are employed to fly the aircraft. This Association says that the 
NPRM was not intended to apply to limited co-ownership arrangements of 
small aircraft that do not involve a management company and in which 
one or more of the co-owners are commercial-pilots and provide the 
piloting. According to this commenter, the rule is not clear whether 
pilots may participate as owners-pilots in subpart K fractional 
programs without being subject to the increased crew requirements while 
they are piloting their co-owned aircraft for their own personal and 
business transportation. The commenter urges the FAA to make the final 
rules of subpart K clear so that a pilot co-owner may participate in a 
fractional ownership program without having to meet the additional crew 
requirements.
    Eclipse Aviation mentions that proposed subpart K sets forth very 
specific crew pairing, experience, flight, duty and rest time 
requirements, and that for the owner-pilot, many of whom will be 
qualified to conduct single-pilot operations, the crew pairing 
requirements of proposed Sec.  91.1055 are unnecessary. Further, for 
the single-pilot operator, or one who chooses to utilize a second in 
command (SIC), either by insurance or regulatory necessity, or simply 
for the sake of added safety, the experience, training and testing, 
proficiency, flight, duty, and rest time provisions of proposed 
Sec. Sec.  91.1053, 91.1057, 91.1059, 91.1063, 91.1065, 91.1069, 
91.1081, and other related sections are overly burdensome. Clearly, 
these safety provisions are appropriate for true fractional program 
operations. The traditional experience, training, testing, proficiency, 
flight, duty and rest time provisions, as well as the other safety 
related provisions of part 91 are sufficient for owner-operated 
personal or business flights.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the proposed applicability 
section and definitions do not adequately delineate fractional 
ownership programs intended to be covered by subpart K from other 
shared aircraft programs or aircraft management programs conducted 
under part 91. These include operations such as traditional management 
companies providing services to aircraft owners absent the dry lease 
exchange provision of subpart K; joint ownership, time-share, or 
interchange operations under Sec.  91.501; flying clubs; or other 
shared aircraft ownership options. Each shared ownership arrangement 
should be reviewed on a case by case basis to determine the appropriate 
regulatory requirements.
    The FAA has amended Sec.  91.1001 to more clearly define the 
elements of fractional ownership programs and the aviation services 
provided under those programs. This includes the provision, furnishing, 
or contracting of crews and the training and qualification of crews and 
other personnel, as suggested by some of the commenters.
    The FAA disagrees with comments that a pilot co-owner should be 
allowed to participate in a fractional ownership program without having 
to meet the additional crew requirements. A fractional owner who 
desires to act as a flight crewmember on a program flight may do so 
only if the owner meets the pilot experience and qualification 
requirements of subpart K and is designated as a crewmember for that 
flight. These pilot requirements are necessary to maintain the safety 
and integrity of the fractional ownership programs and protect the 
property interests of all owners in the program.
    Some of the commenters on this issue address a situation in a 
shared aircraft arrangement where the owners do pilot their own 
aircraft and may use management services for scheduling and maintaining 
the aircraft or providing occasional pilot services such as flight 
instruction. These types of programs might more appropriately fit the 
definition of a flying club or other ownership option not subject to 
this rule. Likewise, traditional management companies and other 
management arrangements may not meet all of the definitional elements 
of a fractional program under subpart K, i.e., dry lease aircraft 
exchange arrangement, provision of pilots and other crewmembers, etc., 
and therefore would not be subject to regulation under subpart K.
    The FAA recognizes that some entities have marketed or otherwise 
referred to themselves as ``fractional ownership'' programs prior to 
this rulemaking, but do not meet all of the elements of the new 
regulatory definition. The FAA recommends that such programs 
discontinue the use of the term ``fractional ownership'' to avoid 
confusion.

Runway Length Required for Landing (Sec. Sec.  91.1037 and 135.385)

    GAMA, NATA, Flexjet and an individual support the proposed rule 
changes, stating that they would not reduce the margin of safety for 
operations of fractionally owned aircraft under part 91 or operations 
under part 135. The proposed runway length requirements provide an 
adequate margin of safety for the reasons stated in the NPRM.
    Spirit Aviation and NATA support the change from requiring the 
airplane to be capable of landing within 60 percent of the available 
runway length to 85 percent of the available runway length because of 
the advancements in technology. Spirit Aviation states that Sec.  
135.385 was promulgated before the development of pavement standards at 
airports and landing strips. In addition, the development of aircraft 
braking and other performance systems have made the 60 percent factored 
landing distance requirement antiquated and unnecessary. As reasons to 
change the requirement from 60 to 85 percent, NATA also mentions 
improvements in brake certification, changes in the method of 
calculating Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) landing distances, and changes 
in landing distance information for different runway conditions 
contained in the AFM.
    Spirit Aviation and NATA also state that the proposed changes to 
Sec.  135.385 would enable part 135 operators to better compete with 
part 91 operators. Spirit Aviation, a part 135 operator, comments that 
the proposed changes would enable it to more effectively serve its 
clientele, as well as compete fairly with part 91 competitors. This 
operator argues that the experience of its pilots, as well as the 
quality of its training is equal if not superior to that of the 
corporate aviation community. Spirit Aviation claims that all aviation 
safety data covering the previous decade show that accident rates under 
part 91 and part 135 have been nearly identical.
    NATA, a FOARC member, (as well as Flexjet) supports the 
justification

[[Page 54527]]

provided in the preamble for the proposed change in runway length. This 
commenter states that the proposed 85 percent runway length dispatch 
rule provides a comfortable safety margin for 91 subpart K operations 
and much needed relief from a redundant and unnecessary restriction for 
eligible part 135 on-demand operators.
    NBAA and New World Jet Corporation (NWJ) support the 85 percent 
margin, but only under certain conditions. NBAA, a FOARC member, 
supports the proposal as an available planning option only under 
optimum conditions for both fractional aircraft ownership operations 
and for qualified commercial on-demand operations conducted under part 
135.
    NWJ notes that daylight operations, an experienced crew, and glide 
slope guidance on the landing runway are examples of conditions 
meriting the 85 percent runway margin. To maintain an even playing 
field and level of risk, specific guidance should be provided to the 
FSDO Inspectors on how to qualify operators according to these 
conditions. This commenter believes that without such conditions some 
operators may be too aggressive when applying this rule.
    The Teamsters quote from the NPRM, ``Aviation safety data indicate 
that the landing accident rates under part 91 and part 135 during the 
previous twelve-year period were nearly identical.'' The commenter 
asserts that the NPRM in effect provides no justification for changing 
the 60 percent rule, arguing that the quoted data, if true, argues more 
for the safety record of part 91 operators than of part 135 operators.
    One commenter states that the FOARC's proposed change to runway 
length does not respect the existing industry best practices regarding 
the use of thrust reversers. An Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) typically 
determines landing distance without the use of thrust reversers. An 
operator under current part 91, attempting to meet minimum compliance, 
could land within 85 percent of the effective runway without thrust 
reversers installed or with the thrust reversers deferred in accordance 
with an MEL. But this would not be in accordance with the best 
practices of the fractional program industry. According to the 
commenter, a reputable fractional program operator would never think of 
dispatching a pilot into a runway with only a 15 percent margin of 
error without operable thrust reversers. However, the proposed rule 
would allow this under subpart K of part 91 and under part 135. The 
commenter states that several on demand air taxi operators that do not 
have thrust reversers installed might require pilots to land at the 
minimum allowed by regulation. If air taxi operators want to land on 
such runways, this commenter suggests that they have the aircraft 
manufacturers include reverse thrust in the AFM landing data as long as 
such data can comply with the provisions in 14 CFR 25.125. These 
provisions state that aircraft manufacturers may use reverse thrust to 
calculate landing data if ``[reverse thrust] is safe and reliable; is 
used so that consistent results can be expected in service; and is such 
that exceptional skill is not required to control the airplane.''
    The commenter also offers the following example: ``* * * when I 
land at KHXD I can typically stop the Cessna Citation Excel I fly in 
2400 feet using reverse thrust. The AFM data indicates that the landing 
distance should have been 3090 feet.'' The commenter attributes the 
difference to the use of reverse thrust because he duplicated all other 
conditions that the AFM specifies.
    Two neighborhood associations, EHANAC and Friends of Sunset Park 
Neighborhood Assoc., submitted comments stating that they oppose the 
proposed 85 percent rule for part 135 operations because they believe 
it will create a grave safety hazard at East Hampton Airport, which 
does not have runway safety areas.
    Similar concerns were raised by other commenters. North Westdale 
Neighborhood Association and Santa Monica Airport worried about the 
impact of increased traffic at the Santa Monica airport and other 
similar small airports if the proposed changes to part 135 are imposed. 
These commenters state that the reduction of the landing runway length 
required under the 60 percent runway rule will increase access by part 
135 business aircraft to thousands of additional airports and increase 
the weight/size capacity of existing aircraft at many general aviation 
airports.
    One commenter states that the proposed 85 percent rule would carry 
a great risk because it would allow large jets to land at airports 
where homes and businesses, including gas stations, are only 100 feet 
from the runway. Another commenter states that this broad change in the 
regulation is being proposed without considering the environmental 
impact or the opinions of the general public. For example, Santa Monica 
Airport (SMO) has a runway with no safety areas and the runway is no 
more than 5,000 feet long. Under the proposed change, larger jets 
requiring more runway length will now be allowed to land. Even though 
the airport has noise restrictions, any jets that meet the noise 
abatement requirements will be allowed to fly over nearby homes and 
businesses, stretching the parameters of safety to the limit.
    PASS, an EJA pilot, and an individual mention the existence of 
several overruns while using a 60 percent margin as a reason to oppose 
the change to an 85 percent margin. One individual commenter states 
that currently several fractional operators utilize part 135 landing 
requirements (60 percent). To the best of this commenter's knowledge, 
each of the fractional operators and many part 135 operators have had 
overrun incidents utilizing the current 60 percent rule. Based upon 
this history, the commenter does not believe it is wise to further 
reduce the safety margins for required runway lengths.
    An EJA pilot states that regardless of FOARC's assumptions of pilot 
techniques and brake wear, there are pilots who fly the airplane at 
speeds above VREF (which is the designated landing approach 
speed) across the landing threshold with worn brakes. This causes a 
dramatic increase in landing distances, well beyond that recommended by 
the FOARC. The commenter concludes that there is not enough safety 
margin available using the 85 percent rule and recommends that the 60 
percent rule be applied to fractional operators.
    A pilot states that while he can fully appreciate the evidence 
presented by the FOARC committee for changing the ``60 percent rule'' 
to 85 percent, he has serious reservations about allowing a reduction 
below 85 percent as proposed Sec. Sec.  135.23(r) and 135.385(g) would 
allow. The commenter believes that even with the stipulated Destination 
Airport Analysis procedures, the human factor for error will remain and 
is not quantifiable. Recent part 121 accidents show that landing 
accidents still happen under what is supposed to be more stringent 
regulations. The commenter states, ``Let's not deny our passengers, 
whether he/she is a charter customer or fractional owner, the extra 
margin of safety that 15 percent affords.''
    Executive Jet Aviation, Inc., (EJA) states that the proposed rule 
needs to be clarified to ensure that while the Destination Airport 
Analysis program contained in the operations manual must be approved, 
the operations manual itself does not require approval in that it is an 
accepted document. Additionally, EJA states that the method of approval 
(operations specifications) should be indicated.
    Kaiser Air, Inc. suggests that Sec.  135.385 (f) (1) and (2) be 
amended to use consistent terminology (for example,

[[Page 54528]]

``still air'' vs. ``probable wind'' and ``most favorable'' vs. ``most 
suitable.'')
    FAA Response: The FAA has studied the discussion in the NPRM 
preamble, the comments received on proposed Sec.  91.1037 and the 
proposed changes to Sec.  135.385, the background of the runway 
limitations for various types of operations, and the relationship 
between the performance rules in the certification standards and the 
landing and takeoff requirements in the operating rules. Based on this 
review, the FAA has decided to modify the proposed 85 percent 
requirement and to withdraw the proposal to allow a higher takeoff 
weight than would be permitted under the 85 percent standard if the 
operator prepares an approved Destination Airport Analysis.
    The FAA has determined that the arguments presented in the NPRM 
preamble for reducing the current part 135 safety margins indicate a 
misconception regarding the basis and evolution of the current landing 
distance requirements. The landing distance margin requirements 
contained in the operating rules applicable to large transport category 
airplanes are intended to take into account those items that are not 
included or are not fully addressed in the part 25 airplane type 
certification landing distance requirements used to determine the 
landing distances provided in Airplane Flight Manuals. These factors 
include steady-state variables that are not required to be taken into 
account in the landing distances determined under part 25, differences 
in operational procedures and techniques used in actual operations from 
those used in determining the part 25 landing distances, non steady-
state variables, and differences in the conditions forecast at dispatch 
and those existing at the time of landing. Examples of each of these 
categories include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Non steady-state      Actual operations vs.     Actual vs. forecast
        Steady-state variables                variables               flight test               conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Runway slope.........................  Wind gusts/turbulence..  Flare technique........  Runway or direction
                                                                                          (affecting slope).
Temperature..........................  Flight path deviations.  Time to activate         Airplane weight.
                                                                 deceleration devices.
Runway surface condition (dry, wet,    .......................  Flight path angle......  Approach speed.
 icy, texture).
Brake/tire condition.................  .......................  Rate of descent at       Environmental
                                                                 touchdown.               conditions (for
                                                                                          example, temperature,
                                                                                          wind, pressure
                                                                                          altitude).
Speed additives......................  .......................  Approach/touchdown       Engine failure.
                                                                 speed.
Crosswinds...........................  .......................  Height at threshold
                                                                Speed control..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although this is not intended to be an exhaustive list of variables 
to be considered, any program to reduce the current landing distance 
margins, for example, through the use of a Destination Airport 
Analysis, should address at least these items, and should be 
substantiated by actual operational landing data.
    No evidence exists to show that the current landing distance margin 
required by Sec.  135.385 was established to compensate for 
deficiencies in predicting landing performance in the 1930's and 1940's 
that have since been rectified. One of the primary difficulties in 
establishing a safe landing distance margin, both now and at the time 
the landing distance limitations were originally developed, is that it 
depends on forecasting the landing conditions at the time of dispatch. 
The landing conditions must be forecast at the time of dispatch because 
the landing distance limitation is applied as a limitation on the 
allowable takeoff weight at the time of dispatch such that a safe 
landing can be made at either the destination or alternate airport. 
Safety margins are necessary to allow for differences between the 
conditions forecast at the time of dispatch and the conditions existing 
at the time of landing.
    In addition, since the actual landing distance achieved depends on 
pilot technique and environmental conditions (for example, crosswinds, 
gusts), the safety margins must allow for variations in these 
parameters. Lastly, the procedures and techniques used in flight tests 
of transport category airplanes to determine AFM landing distances 
differ from those used operationally (notwithstanding the requirement 
in Sec.  25.101(f) that states that ``changes in the airplane's 
configuration, speed, power, and thrust, must be made in accordance 
with procedures established * * * for operation in service''). The 
flight tests to determine landing distances under Sec.  25.125 are 
generally treated as demonstrations of the maximum performance (i.e., 
minimum landing distance) that can possibly be obtained within the 
constraints of the certification requirements. Especially for large 
transport category airplanes, but also for many smaller transport 
category airplanes, the landing distance safety margins required by 
parts 121 and 135 are relied upon to provide realistic landing 
distances for use in the operating environment.
    FAA policy does not permit consideration of the effect of thrust 
reverse in calculating landing distances. Part 25 allows means other 
than wheel brakes to be taken into account if that means is safe and 
reliable, is used so that consistent results can be expected in 
service, and is such that exceptional skill is not required to control 
the airplane. Nevertheless, the FAA has not found thrust reversers 
reliable enough to allow landing distances to be based on their use. 
This policy provides some additional safety margin for airplanes with 
reversers that are operable and used in combination with (not in lieu 
of) maximum braking from wheel brakes and spoilers. If the FAA were to 
allow the use of reverse thrust as a condition for using, for example, 
an 85 percent factor for calculating landing distances, the result 
would be to assign an arbitrary performance capability to reverse 
thrust, which may or may not be met by different airplane/engine/
reverse thrust combinations. Also, it would be inconsistent with the 
treatment of reverse thrust by the FAA for airplane type certification 
purposes, which has not allowed landing distances to be based on the 
use of reverse thrust.
    In regard to the NPRM discussion of improved airplane certification 
guidelines, many of the guidelines referenced as improvements either 
date back to the era when the 60 percent rule was implemented or were 
put in place to limit the use of potentially hazardous flight test 
techniques to demonstrate short landing distances. For example, the 
limitations on approach angles and touchdown rates of descent were 
instituted in response to the steep approaches and hard landings used 
to

[[Page 54529]]

obtain shorter landing distances. Although that type of flight test 
demonstration of maximum performance is no longer considered 
acceptable, the methods of determining the resulting landing distance 
parameters used to calculate the AFM landing distances still result in 
the same distances as had been obtained with that type of 
demonstration. Therefore, although the risk in flight testing has been 
reduced and any further deterioration in safety margin prevented, 
landing distances atypical of actual operations are still being 
achieved under part 25. This holds true for all part 25 airplanes, 
independent of size or intended type of operation.
    The claim that improvements in certification guidelines have 
reduced the need for the current part 135 (or part 121) safety margin 
is incorrect. The current certification guidelines for transport 
category airplanes were established assuming the use of the 60 percent 
rule, which ensures a margin of safety consistent with the number of 
variables and the degree of variation that might occur in actual 
operations. For example, in certification of one large transport 
category airplane, data showed that the safety margin would only allow 
for either a rate of sink at touchdown of no less than 3 ft/sec, a 
glideslope of no less than 2 degrees, or a speed no more than about 10 
percent higher than the designated approach speed. In this case, the 60 
percent margin would be entirely used up for a rate of descent at 
touchdown of 4 ft/sec, a glideslope of 2.5 degrees, and an approach 
speed 5 knots higher than the no wind approach speed, all of which may 
be reasonably expected to occur in operational landings.
    A table similar to that shown in the NPRM, but highlighting issues 
that may result in longer landing distances, illustrates the necessity 
of an adequate operational safety margin:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Operational        Effect on safety
   Certification criteria         consideration            margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.5 degree glideslope angle.  2.5 to 3 degrees      Actual landing
                               typical.              distance will be
                                                     longer than
                                                     calculated landing
                                                     distance.
8 ft/sec touchdown rate of    2 to 4 ft/sec         Actual landing
 descent.                      typical.              distance will be
                                                     longer than
                                                     calculated landing
                                                     distance.
Assumes all approach speed    5 to 10 knots         Actual landing
 additives bled off before     exceedances not       distance will be
 reaching the 50 foot height.  uncommon.             longer than
                                                     calculated landing
                                                     distance.
                              Longer flare          Actual landing
                               distance              distance will be
                               (``float'').          longer than
                                                     calculated landing
                                                     distance.
                              Less than full        Actual landing
                               braking effort.       distance will be
                                                     longer than
                                                     calculated landing
                                                     distance.
                              Delays in obtaining   Actual landing
                               full braking          distance will be
                               configuration.        longer than
                                                     calculated landing
                                                     distance.
                              Higher temperatures   Actual landing
                               not accounted for     distance will be
                               (temperature          longer than
                               accountability not    calculated landing
                               required).            distance.
                              Downhill runway       Actual landing
                               slope not accounted   distance will be
                               for (runway slope     longer than
                               accountability not    calculated
                               required.             distance.distance
                              Icy, slippery, or     Actual landing
                               contaminated runway   distance will be
                               surface.              longer than
                                                     calculated
                                                     distance.
                              Airplane heavier at   Actual landing
                               time of landing       distance will be
                               than predicted at     longer than
                               time of dispatch.     calculated
                                                     distance.
                              Airplane higher than  Actual landing
                               50 feet over the      distance will be
                               threshold.            longer than
                                                     calculated
                                                     distance.
                              Airport pressure      Actual landing
                               altitude higher       distance will be
                               than predicted at     longer than
                               time of dispatch.     calculated
                                                     distance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM preamble states that if the 60 percent requirement were 
necessary for part 91 operations, business jets operated under part 91 
should have a higher rate of runway overshoot events than on-demand 
operators have under part 135. The preamble states that such a 
difference has not been observed, and that landing accident rates under 
part 91 and part 135 have been nearly identical during the previous 12-
years. The preamble cites a report prepared by Robert E. Breiling 
Associates of Boca Raton, Florida. The report concludes, ``it would 
appear that the 40 percent safety factor in present use for FAR 135 is 
excessive. A factor based on actual aircraft performance on 
contaminated runways with the inclusion of a 10 percent to 20 percent 
safety factor would be more appropriate.'' However, a closer look at 
the Breiling report reveals that 73.8 percent of all business jet 
accidents/incidents occurring in the landing phase involved part 91 
operations, while 26.2 percent involved part 135 operations. Accident/
incident rates cannot be inferred directly from this information, 
however, as the number of operations conducted under these respective 
operating rules is not known. Additional problems in trying to draw 
conclusions from generalized accident statistics like these are that: 
(1) Many part 91 operators apply part 135 landing distance margins even 
though they are not required to do so by regulation, and (2) most 
operations are conducted on runways that are longer than the minimum 
length necessary to comply with the landing distance limitations.
    In 1985, there was a fatal landing overrun of a Lear 24, operating 
under part 91, at Catalina Airport on Santa Catalina Island, Avalon, 
California. The runway length at Catalina Airport is 3,240 feet long. 
Without any safety margin, the Lear 24 needs a landing distance of 
3,100 feet at the conditions present in the accident. If the 60 percent 
rule were applied, a landing distance of 5,167 feet would have been 
required.
    As a result of the accident, the NTSB recommended that the FAA 
issue an operations bulletin directing general aviation safety 
inspectors and accident prevention specialists to urge operators of 
transport category airplanes to use safety margins consistent with 
those required by part 135, or at least a margin consistent with the 
performance of the emergency brake system on the airplane. The FAA 
responded to the Board's safety recommendation by issuing Operations 
Bulletin 86-2, which described the above accident and directed general 
aviation safety inspectors and accident prevention specialists to take 
actions in accordance with the Board's recommendation. (This 
information appears in the current issue

[[Page 54530]]

of the General Aviation Safety Inspector's Handbook, Order 8700.1 
Change 9, as Paragraph 19 in Volume 2.)
    The NPRM notes that a reduced margin would allow a substantial 
expansion of opportunities for on-demand operators, particularly at 
airports with a single short runway. The FAA does not believe that the 
effect would be as large as the NPRM suggests. Although it depends on 
the specific airplane's performance capabilities, the takeoff distance 
requirements are usually more limiting than the landing distance 
requirements, even under the ``60 percent rule.'' For operations 
predicated on the use of a single runway, a reduction in the landing 
distance required would not ensure the viability of an operation into 
an airport. The airplane may not be able to make a subsequent takeoff, 
or the allowable takeoff weight may be significantly below the weight 
at which the airplane landed. For example, in the case of the accident 
at Catalina Island noted previously, if the airplane had landed safely, 
it would not have been able to take off again at the same weight 
because it would have needed a longer takeoff distance than was 
available. Generally, unless the purpose of the flight was to drop off 
payload, the allowable takeoff weight will need to be higher than the 
weight at which the airplane landed due to the need to load additional 
fuel for the return trip.
    Based on its consideration of the above issues, the FAA has made 
changes in the final rule that maintain the level of safety provided by 
the current 60 percent rule, while providing operators an alternative 
for seeking approval to use a higher percentage under certain 
conditions that maintain the level of safety deemed appropriate for 
these types of operations. The changes are as follows:
    1. The FAA withdraws the proposal to allow a landing distance in 
excess of 85 percent of the effective runway length if appropriate 
planning, documented in an approved Destination Airport Analysis, shows 
no compromise of safety. The FAA has determined that planning for 
landing distances in excess of 85 percent of the effective runway 
length would not provide an adequate margin of safety.
    2. The final rule requires that both fractional ownership programs 
under subpart K of part 91 and operations conducted under part 135 
must, for planning purposes, show that a turbine engine powered large 
transport category airplane is able make a full stop landing at the 
intended destination airport within 60 percent of the effective length 
of the runway. This maintains the safety level provided by the current 
60 percent in part 135 and codifies for fractional ownership programs 
the FAA's recommendation in Operations Bulletin 86-2 that general 
aviation operators of transport category airplanes use safety margins 
consistent with those required by part 135.
    3. The final rule modifies the 85 percent proposal. Fractional 
ownership program managers under subpart K of part 91 and eligible on-
demand operators under part 135 may apply for approval to plan for a 
full stop landing at the intended destination airport within 80 percent 
of the effective length of the runway if the program manager or 
certificate holder has an approved Destination Airport Analysis in its 
operating manual. The rule further modifies the alternate airport 
requirement and provides an 80 percent planning requirement at the 
alternate airport. The Destination Airport Analysis would establish 
additional runway safety margins to be applied when the planned landing 
weight would use more than 60 percent, but less than 80 percent, of the 
effective runway length, and would be based on analysis of such factors 
as pilot qualifications and experience, airplane performance data, 
airport facilities and topography, runway conditions, airport or area 
weather reporting, appropriate additional runway safety margins, if 
required, or any other criteria that may affect airplane performance. 
The Analysis must be approved by the Administrator, not just 
``accepted,'' and the operation must be authorized in the management 
specifications or operations specifications, as applicable.

Operational Control

    Ten of the comments on the issue of operational control question 
the concept, set out in proposed Sec. Sec.  91.1009 though 91.1013, 
that a fractional owner is in operational control of an aircraft being 
operated in a fractional ownership program. These commenters question 
the NPRM concept of fractional owner operational control from a legal, 
practical, or technical viewpoint, or from some combination of these 
viewpoints. Since a significant number of comments, many from 
individual dispatchers, focus on the need to have qualified dispatchers 
as part of the operational control team, we have treated the dispatch 
issue separately in the following section.
    In questioning the legal basis for asserting that a fractional 
owner has operational control, the Teamsters cite a Federal court 
decision (Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. The United States) that held 
that for certain tax purposes fractional ownership operators are 
considered to be commercial rather than non-commercial operations.
    Many of the negative comments on the issue of operational control, 
including those by PASS, cite practical and technical reasons why 
fractional owners cannot be considered to have operational control. 
Examples are:
    1. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO (IBT) states 
that ``most fractional owners know little about the aircraft, of which 
they own a part, and they comprehend even less the responsibilities and 
accountability associated with aircraft airworthiness, safety of flight 
issues, or the knowledge and accountability associated with the release 
of or the redirection of a flight for operational or safety reasons.''
    2. Jet Sales & Services, Inc. states ``In the real world, it is 
na[iuml]ve to think that under any circumstances the owner of the 
fractional share has operational control other than the scheduling of 
his or her itinerary. In most cases, that fractional participant has 
never even seen the aircraft that they own or lease.''
    3. The CAA states ``it seems to us that, in practice, the 
fractional owner will have little or no involvement in the operation 
other than selecting a competent fractional ownership program 
manager.''
    4. Style Air states that aircraft owners who operate under part 91 
``are usually familiar with who crews and maintains their airplanes'' 
and that often these owners ``are involved with the decision making 
process for acquisition, budgets, equipment procurement, and employee 
issues.'' Style Air states that ``The fractional owner generally has no 
interest in the specifics of aircraft management,'' and that ``The 
benefit of the fractional program is to relieve the aircraft owner of 
these responsibilities.''
    5. The Teamsters state that ``the most telling of all parts of a 
fractional owner's lack of the most basic operational control resides 
in the management agreements'' and that the ``so-called owner of an 
aircraft in the program cannot even sell `his' share of `his' aircraft 
to anyone without permission of the program manager.''
    FAA Response: Fractional ownership is based on models of 
traditional aircraft management or corporate aviation in which an owner 
directly or indirectly employs an individual or entity to provide 
aviation expertise and services. It is also based on principles of 
shared aircraft operations defined in part 91. In these models the 
owner may or may not have the aviation expertise to conduct the 
operation, but retains the operational control responsibility to ensure 
the operation is conducted

[[Page 54531]]

within the scope and context of the regulations. The size and 
complexity of the program, the number of owners, and elements such as 
the dry lease aircraft exchange and aircraft and crew positioning that 
are unique to fractional ownership programs limit the ability of an 
individual owner to direct the operation. Therefore, elements and 
conduct of the program must be established and agreed to by the owners 
and implemented by regulatory requirements and contractual agreement. 
Further, the FAA is defining operational control responsibilities and 
safety standards appropriate to these operations that enable an owner 
to effectively exercise operational control.
    The FAA disagrees with the CAA comment that the fractional owner 
will have little or no involvement other than selecting a competent 
fractional ownership program manager. An individual or a corporation 
has many options to meet their transportation needs. This could include 
airlines, charter, their own flight department or aircraft, fractional 
ownership, or others. Each option has benefits and limitations, 
including costs, operational control responsibilities, flexibility, 
risk levels, liability, and other factors. These criteria are weighed 
against the individual's operational needs to make business decisions 
about which form or forms of air travel best meet their requirements.
    Once a person makes a decision to enter into a fractional ownership 
program as a transportation option, he or she then makes decisions as 
to the aircraft type, management company, program elements, safety 
compliance, and size of share to meet their individual travel needs. 
Moreover, fractional owners may use their own flight crew, provided 
they meet the requirements of the program and this rule. The fractional 
owner has the ultimate responsibility to ensure the safety of the 
operation and compliance with the rules. This regulation specifies the 
program requirements and assigns responsibilities for these 
requirements. Owners have a responsibility not only to choose a program 
and a program manager, but also to ensure that the tasks are completed 
in accordance with the regulations and the contractual agreements. The 
owners have a right to inspect and audit the records of program manager 
pertaining to the operational safety of the program and regulatory 
compliance. Enforcement of violations of the regulations could penalize 
the fractional owner, the program manager, or both, depending on the 
nature of the violation.
    Based on the comments, the FAA amended the operational control 
sections to clarify operational control responsibilities and delegation 
of task performance. See the discussion below under Sec. Sec.  91.1003 
and 91.1009-91.1013.

Aircraft Dispatchers

    The Airline Dispatchers Federation (ADF), Teamsters, and at least 
30 individual dispatchers state that a full aircraft dispatching 
system, as required under part 121, is needed to ensure adequate 
operational control.
    One individual commenter states that Executive Jet, the ``founder'' 
firm of fractional ownership, has, in the interest of the highest level 
of safety, instituted a dispatch and flight following system. This 
commenter included a list of operational control considerations (for 
example continuing weather evaluation, appropriate aircraft performance 
computations) that warrant requiring a qualified dispatcher.
    ADF believes that the NPRM's greatest fault concerns operational 
control, defined by the FAA as the authority over initiating, 
conducting, and terminating a flight. Although many years of operating 
experience has shown that the safest aviation operations utilize 
positive operational control through the joint responsibility of the 
Aircraft Dispatcher and Pilot-in-Command (PIC), this NPRM does not 
require this type of operational control. As an example, perhaps one of 
the most important Federal Aviation Regulations governing airline 
operations is Sec.  121.601(c), which requires the aircraft dispatcher, 
during flight, to provide the PIC any additional information that may 
affect the safety of the flight. This NPRM does not require this in-
flight monitoring/communication for Fractional Operators.
    NBAA opposes the mandatory use of FAA-certified dispatchers for 
fractional aircraft ownership programs. NATA states that commenters who 
recommend aircraft dispatchers in fractional ownership programs are not 
considering the safety record of these programs or the burden 
dispatcher requirements would place on small businesses entering the 
market.
    According to Alpha Flying, Inc., dispatcher certification would be 
an unfair burden on fractional programs which already would be required 
to comply with requirements far beyond existing part 91 and even some 
part 119/135 requirements. The FAA dispatcher exam also bears no 
relevance to today's business and private aircraft management 
practices, especially those of fractional ownership. It should be noted 
here, again, that the practices of existing fractional ownership 
programs have led to the best safety record of any segment of aviation.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenters that aircraft 
dispatchers provide benefits with respect to safety and efficiency. The 
FAA also supports the use of aircraft dispatchers in fractional 
ownership programs as a program option and safety benefit. However, the 
final rule does not apply a mandatory requirement for certificated 
aircraft dispatchers in subpart K. Certificated aircraft dispatchers 
and dispatch systems are currently required for part 121 domestic and 
flag operations. They are not required for any operation under part 91, 
part 135, or for supplemental operations under part 121.
    The final rule requires a flight locating system in Sec.  91.1029 
of subpart K, comparable to that required in Sec.  135.79. Section 
91.1029 further requires a system for scheduling and releasing program 
aircraft. The size and complexity of the operation will dictate the 
level of sophistication and adequacy of the system. In addition Sec.  
91.1049(e) requires that the program manager ensure that trained and 
qualified scheduling or flight release personnel are on duty to 
schedule and release program aircraft during all hours that such 
aircraft are available for program operations. The FAA recognizes that 
some companies have employed certificated aircraft dispatchers to 
accomplish these duties, however the final rule allows the flexibility 
for the program manager to determine the qualification of the 
scheduling or release personnel as appropriate to the aircraft, size 
and complexity of the operation, and the geographical area served. In 
all cases the program must provide adequate procedures for locating 
each flight, if a flight plan is not filed.

Night Currency (Sec. Sec.  61.57 and 135.247)

    Seven commenters (two individuals, NBAA, NATA, Flexjet, Kaiser Air 
Inc., and General Motors Air Transportation Section (GM)) that address 
the proposed changes to these sections generally support the proposed 
changes. Kaiser questions whether the words ``requires more than one 
pilot'' relates to type design requirements or operating rule 
requirements. An individual commenter suggests that the ``preceding six 
months'' requirement be changed to ``seven months'' to cover the 
possibility that a pilot might, under Sec.  135.297, take a check ride 
one grace month early and the following check ride one grace month 
late.

[[Page 54532]]

    FAA Response: In response to operator safety concerns, the FAA 
amended Sec.  61.57(e) on April 30, 1999, to provide an alternate means 
of compliance for meeting FAA's night currency requirement. This 
alternative allows operators to maintain currency by using both the 
aircraft and part 142 approved training programs.
    The applicability of the alternative is unclear, however, because 
in order to qualify for the alternate means of compliance, a pilot must 
``operate more than one type of aircraft.'' Under this definition, 
operators are uncertain how to determine if a pilot ``operates'' more 
than one type of aircraft.
    The change to Sec.  61.57(e) in this final rule clarifies the 
existing alternative and provides a second alternate means of 
compliance for pilots of turbine-powered aircraft that require more 
than one pilot and that meet additional experience requirements. The 
first alternative allows pilots to maintain night currency through the 
performance of three takeoffs and landings to a full stop over a 6-
month period. The second alternative allows pilots to maintain night 
currency through the performance of 6 takeoffs and landings to a full 
stop in a simulator training program approved under part 142 of this 
chapter. The FAA believes these alternatives provide an equivalent 
level of safety for night flying operations and that because of the 
similar nature of operations and aircraft used, pilots used for on-
demand part 135 operations also should be allowed to maintain night 
recency of experience using this alternate means of compliance.
    In response to the question about the meaning of ``requires more 
than one pilot,'' the FAA has changed the final rule to clarify that 
the requirements of Sec. Sec.  61.57(e)(3) and 135.247(a)(3) apply to 
airplanes that are type certificated for more than one pilot crewmember 
and to pilots qualifying in each airplane type.
    The FAA has not changed the time frame for the ``preceding six 
month'' requirement to ``preceding seven months'' because the grace 
period requirement (Sec.  135.301(a)) does not apply to requirements 
tied to a preceding number of months.

Security

    NBAA, AOPA and several individual pilots point out that while FOARC 
and therefore the NPRM did not address security issues, this rule 
should make recommendations concerning potential security measures that 
might be adopted in the wake of September 11, 2001. NBAA recommends 
caution and restraint in the deployment of new security regulations. 
AOPA recommends that any new security mandates for part 135 on-demand 
charter operations apply to operations covered under proposed subpart 
K.
    With the focus on safeguarding commercial carriers, many experts 
believe that private charter and corporate aircraft are now more 
vulnerable than ever at small airports that have virtually no security. 
Small airports lack measures like security fences, lights or guards; 
there is no security to guard parked planes; small planes could be 
stolen and loaded with dangerous chemicals; small planes can also skim 
treetops and avoid radar detection. Yet the FAA wants to increase 
business operations at small airports with these new rule changes. 
Several other commenters also raise the security issue.
    NATA does not think that this rulemaking is the appropriate 
situation for discussing security issues. According to the commenter, 
there needs to be an industry-wide, comprehensive examination of 
security issues.
    FAA Response: No new security requirements were proposed in the 
NPRM and no security requirements have been added to the final rule, 
because that would be outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, 
the FAA is working with the Transportation Security Administration, 
aviation associations, and airports to improve security procedures for 
general aviation and in the areas of airports that serve general 
aviation. Any new security requirements that would apply to fractional 
ownership programs would be issued by the Transportation Security 
Administration.

International Operations

    NATA and Flexjet describe a problem concerning international 
operations under fractional ownership when there has been a change in 
ownership requiring changes in aircraft registration. Because current 
rules prohibit operations outside the United States under a ``pink 
slip'' (temporary registration), these commenters recommend that a more 
formal temporary registration system be established that would allow 
international flight. This system could use aircraft registration 
designees who could function in a manner similar to Designated 
International Representatives and Designated Examiners.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree that the registration function 
of the Aircraft Registry in Oklahoma City can be delegated to non-
governmental persons as is done in other areas. International law 
forbids the operation of an aircraft outside the U.S. without an 
official registration certificate, so a temporary certificate would not 
be acceptable. Fractional owners who wish to travel outside the U.S. 
must be aware of this obligation and ensure that the aircraft being 
used for such a flight is properly registered. There are private 
businesses located in Oklahoma City that assist those who need to 
obtain a new aircraft certificate because of a change in ownership. 
These services are often used when there are changes in ownership of 
aircraft operated by part 119 certificate holders.

FAA: Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program

    NATA and Flexjet recommend that the FAA amend AC No. 00-58 to 
clarify that the FAA's voluntary disclosure program ``applies to 
fractional ownership program managers to the same extent that it 
applies to certificate holders, indirect air carriers, foreign air 
carriers, and production approval holders.''
    FAA Response: The FAA is considering changes to Advisory Circular 
00-58, but any revision will not occur until after the publication of 
this final rule. This topic will also be addressed in the fractional 
ownership implementation planning.

Illegal Commercial Use

    Marc Fruchter Aviation states that an issue not adequately 
addressed by the NPRM is the issue of share owners using their shares 
to provide illegal commercial aircraft travel for others. Fruchter 
Aviation suggests two additions to the rule language to address this 
problem. First, all solicitations for share purchases should be 
mandated to contain exact definitions of and explicit warnings about 
the legal and economic consequences of illegal commercial use of 
fractional share flights and the possibility of a forfeiture of 
insurance coverage should be detailed as well. Second, the rules should 
be strengthened to spell out penalties against the share owner and 
fractional provider should this activity occur. Significant penalties 
against both entities would go far to deter this practice.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees there is a potential for illegal 
commercial use of aircraft being operated under fractional ownership 
programs. Section 91.1005 addresses this issue. In the final rule we 
have retitled the section from ``Owner's use of program aircraft'' to 
``Prohibitions and limitations'' and amended the text to more clearly 
state that a fractional owner may not use a

[[Page 54533]]

program aircraft to provide transportation to others for compensation 
or hire. In addition, we have added a new paragraph (c) to Sec.  
91.1005 addressing the sale or sublease of an aircraft interest by 
either a program manager or fractional owner. This paragraph would make 
it clear that if the sale or sublease of an aircraft interest would 
result in less than the minimum aircraft interest prescribed in Sec.  
91.1001(b)(10), then subpart K does not apply. Flights conducted for 
associated reduced share sizes are required to be conducted under part 
121 or part 135, as appropriate, by a part 119 certificate holder.
    Further, the FAA added a new paragraph (c) to Sec.  91.1001 to 
clarify that the rules of subpart K apply to persons who engage in 
programs meeting the new definitions of this subpart without first 
obtaining management specifications under subpart K.
    Any penalties for non-compliance with this rule and all other FAA 
rules are explained in 14 CFR part 13, subpart C, Legal Enforcement 
Actions. In addition, we note that any unlawful commercial operations 
may also be subject to enforcement action by the Office of the 
Secretary for violations associated with its economic licensing 
requirements. (See 49 U.S.C. 46101 and 46301.) Further, Sec.  91.1013 
requires each owner to sign an acknowledgment of the fractional owner's 
operational control responsibilities, including compliance with 
management specifications and applicable regulations and penalties for 
non-compliance.

Over-water Operations (Sec. Sec.  91.509 and 135.167)

    Several comments were received on the proposal to revise part 91 
and part 135 equipment requirements for over-water operations.
    NATA, Flexjet, and a flight operations manager state that they 
support the revision because the proven reliability of turbine engines 
shows that there would be no compromise of safety.
    Columbia Helicopters supports the provisions for part 91 because of 
the altitude requirement, but not for part 135. According to the 
commenter, the current part 135 provisions are for ``extended over-
water operations,'' which is defined in 14 CFR part 1. (The definition 
in part 1 for ``extended over-water operations'' for aircraft other 
than helicopters is more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest 
shoreline; for helicopters it is more than 50 nautical miles from the 
nearest shoreline or from an offshore heliport structure.) The 
commenter states that the revision would make an exception to the part 
1 definition and that such an exception should be done by exemption. 
The commenter believes that the change will jeopardize lives because 
any survivors of a ditching would have no means of surviving in the 
water until they are rescued.
    Two commenters support the amendments, but want stipulations or 
clarifications based on the type of engine. One of these commenters 
would change ``turbine-powered aircraft'' to ``turbine-powered 
multiengine aircraft.'' Since there are pressurized single engine 
turbine-powered aircraft in fractional programs, the commenter hopes 
that FOARC and the FAA did not intend to allow single engine turbine-
powered aircraft to operate without appropriate survival equipment. An 
engine failure above flight level (FL) 250 in a multiengine turbine-
powered aircraft yields a very different result than in a single engine 
aircraft. This commenter believes that allowing the exception for 
single engine turbine-powered aircraft would not provide an appropriate 
level of safety.
    Four commenters oppose both amendments for safety reasons. Two of 
these commenters, an individual and an EJA Pilot, state that the recent 
case where an Airbus A330 had a dual engine flameout over the Atlantic 
Ocean because of fuel problems is a perfect example why this equipment 
should be on every over-water aircraft.
    An EJA Pilot, one of the opposing commenters, states that it would 
decrease safety to allow flights beyond 50 nautical miles or 30 minutes 
flight time (whichever is greater), before requiring safety devices. 
This commenter recommends the FAA require over-water survival equipment 
for all flights beyond 50 nautical miles from the shoreline.
    NATA points out that the proposed rule does not revise the current 
requirement to carry a life preserver for each occupant.
    Two individual commenters believe that 30 minutes over water 
without safety equipment is too much time. If the plane was on fire or 
had other reasons for an immediate landing, the lack of a life raft 
could be fatal. With the addition of ``whichever is greater,'' jet 
aircraft traveling in excess of 500 knots could be 250 nautical miles 
or greater out to sea. This exceeds the distance that rapid response 
search and rescue helicopters or rescue equipment could realistically 
be expected to deploy for search and rescue efforts. One of these 
commenters also states that the limit should be the same for all 
operators/types of operations.
    The Teamsters state that the unstated reason for amending part 135 
is to let part 135 charter operators ``compete'' with the fractional 
providers. Part 135 operators have traditionally been held to a higher 
standard of safety than a private aircraft operator. According to this 
commenter, the reduction in safety from the change in part 135 is 
solely to reach a deal with charter industry groups. The commenter 
states that no data support any changes to Sec.  135.167.
    PASS does not see a reason for having these special rules regarding 
aircraft under subpart K. This commenter believes that the part 91 
rules that are in effect should stand; however, if the rule needs to be 
changed, then the entire rule should be changed, not just the part that 
applies to subpart K.
    Kaiser Air, Inc. strongly supports the change to Sec.  135.167(d) 
but notes that the rule does not contain the statement in the proposed 
rule preamble that a deviation below 25,000 feet is allowed in the 
interest of safety.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the safety concerns of these 
commenters. In the final rule, the FAA has included language in 
Sec. Sec.  91.509(c) and 135.167(a) similar to that in Sec.  121.339 
that allows the FAA to amend management specifications or operations 
specifications, as applicable, to require the carriage of any or all 
over-water emergency equipment or to allow a fractional ownership 
program or on-demand operation to request a deviation for a particular 
over water operation. Commenters are correct that only turbine-powered 
multi-engine airplanes would qualify. The proposed rule was not 
intended to apply to helicopters; the use of the word ``aircraft'' 
instead of ``airplane'' in the proposed rule was in error. The specific 
airplane types for which an operator requests exception would need to 
have a reliability program under which the operator is able to 
demonstrate and ensure the reliability of the airplane engines. Other 
conditions and limitations would be imposed on the operator to ensure 
that safety and survivability are maintained. The FAA will develop 
guidance for fractional ownership programs and part 135 operations 
based on the guidance for part 121 operations in the Air Transportation 
Operations Inspectors Handbook (Order 8400.10, Volume 3, Paragraph 87).
    In addition, the FAA has researched the relevant regulatory 
provisions and has reviewed relevant rules applicable to current air 
carrier operations. This research reveals that the ``whichever is 
more'' language is inconsistent with the FAA's past interpretation of 
the relevant regulations. Therefore, the final rule

[[Page 54534]]

includes the words ``whichever is less'' in Sec.  91.509(b) to clarify 
that under the current rule the phrase ``within 30 minutes flying time 
or 100 nautical miles'' means whichever is the closest to shore.
    In response to the comment about deviations in the interest of 
safety, it is not necessary to include that language in this rule 
because Sec.  91.3(b) allows a pilot to deviate from any FAA rule to 
the extent required to meet an in-flight emergency requiring immediate 
action.

IFR Takeoff, Approach and Landing Minimums (Sec. Sec.  91.1039 and 
135.225)

    NATA and Flexjet fully support the proposed alternative means of 
complying with the destination airport weather reporting facility 
requirements under part 135 and the proposal to apply the same 
requirements and alternatives in part 91, subpart K.
    The Teamsters, a fractional pilot, and an individual question the 
safety of allowing operations into airports that do not have on-site 
weather reporting facilities. These commenters believe that this 
proposed change would reduce the level of safety now provided by Sec.  
135.225 and establish an inadequate level of safety for fractional 
owner operations.
    A flight operations manager states that as proposed, every time a 
part 135 or fractional program flight was to depart for an airport 
without weather reporting, an alternate airport must be designated 
regardless of the current or forecast weather. The commenter states 
that this in many cases would require an aircraft to make unnecessary 
fuel stops to assume instrument flight rules (IFR) fuel reserves even 
if the weather were VMC (visual meteorological conditions). The 
commenter suggests specific language that in effect would tie the 
requirement more specifically to the forecast weather at a facility 
within 25 NM of the destination airport.
    Kaiser Air questions the practicality of a PIC's ensuring that the 
required ``visibility is maintainable for the entire length of the 
runway'' as is required by proposed Sec.  91.1039(e). This commenter 
also states that Sec.  135.225(h) should state specifically what 
sections in part 91 are being referenced. Furthermore, Kaiser Air 
states that there is no apparent change to part 135 that specifically 
gives a level playing field with part 91 subpart K regarding take-off 
minimums found in Sec.  91.1039(d) and (e). Kaiser believes part 135 
should get relief for take-off minimums.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with commenters that question the 
safety of operations into airports without weather reporting 
facilities. Fractional ownership operations currently have no weather 
reporting requirements at the destination airport. This final rule 
provides a safety benefit by requiring weather reporting at the 
destination airport or requiring that an alternate airport with weather 
reporting be designated. Also a current local altimeter setting must be 
available for both airports.
    Current Sec.  135.225(a) prohibits initiation of an instrument 
approach at a destination airport unless that airport has a weather 
reporting facility on the field. The final rule provides an alternative 
means of compliance for eligible part 135 on-demand operators to 
initiate an instrument approach at a destination airport that does not 
have weather reporting facilities. The on-demand operator must 
designate an alternate airport with weather reporting facilities, have 
a current local altimeter setting for both airports, and meet 
additional crew qualification and pairing requirements.
    The FAA believes that technologies and aviation weather services 
have improved and been implemented to support this alternative. 
Further, this provides a safety benefit by allowing an operator to plan 
and conduct a stabilized instrument approach to an airport.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter who states that an alternate 
airport must be designated regardless of current or forecast weather, 
and that operators would need to carry additional fuel, even if the 
weather was VMC. This final rule provides an alternative means to 
enable an operator to plan and conduct a flight under IFR to a 
destination airport that does not have weather reporting and to 
initiate and conduct an instrument approach at that airport. It does 
not prohibit an operator from conducting a flight to that airport under 
VFR. Designation of an alternate airport is not required if the 
approach can be conducted under VFR. Section 135.213 allows the pilot 
to make a determination of weather conditions for operations under VFR, 
based on the pilot's own observations.
    The FAA agrees in part with Kaiser Air on the practicality of 
having the pilot determine, as provided in Sec.  91.1039(e), that the 
``visibility is maintained for the entire length of the runway.'' For 
low visibility operations there may be additional criteria, such as 
runway lighting or markings, required for these operations. The FAA has 
amended the regulatory language to impose a takeoff limit of 600 feet 
for fractional ownership program operations, without specifying the 
method for determining the visibility. Management specifications and 
other guidance will provide the weather reporting requirements and 
other criteria for determining visibility in conducting takeoffs in 
these conditions.
    Kaiser Air is correct that a change in takeoff minimums for part 
135 operations was not proposed. Since this was not proposed in the 
NPRM, a change to part 135 takeoff minimums and weather reporting 
requirements for takeoff is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs (Sec. Sec.  91.1047, 135.251 and 
135.255)

    PASS, NWJ, Aviation Charter Services, and an individual believe 
that Sec.  91.1047 individuals need to be on an FAA approved drug 
program (which includes testing), not just receive drug education 
training. PASS states that the testing and training should be 
documented and that a current list would be made available to the 
Administrator. NWJ and the individual state that not requiring a 
Federally mandated testing program will result in inconsistencies and a 
lack of standardization among fractional operations, as well as among 
the maintenance vendors that support them. These commenters believe 
that Sec.  91.1047(c)(3) does not provide enough clarification or 
consistency to properly enforce the spirit of the proposed regulation.
    NWJ and the individual commenter praise FOARC and the FAA for 
providing part 135 operators with relief from drug and alcohol testing 
under the provisions of Sec. Sec.  135.251(c) and 135.255(c).
    Two other commenters object to the proposed relaxation for 
emergency maintenance situations under part 135. One of the commenters 
states that allowing for the use of maintenance personnel not currently 
covered by a DOT drug and alcohol program to perform ``emergency 
maintenance'' on fractional aircraft when there are no available 
maintenance personnel could be open to interpretation by the FAA and 
could lead an operator down the wrong path.
    PASS believes that there should be a procedure to re-inspect an 
aircraft at its next destination after emergency maintenance has been 
performed and that passengers should not be carried on-board the 
aircraft until the emergency maintenance has been inspected by a 
qualified mechanic.
    EJA and Flexjet suggest changing ``program'' in the title of Sec.  
91.1047 to ``education'' to avoid confusion because ``program'' was 
used in the title of the

[[Page 54535]]

section but ``education'' appears within the section.
    FAA Response: By statute, the FAA is obligated to impose the drug 
and alcohol testing programs on air carriers. The requirements are 
located in appendices I and J of part 121 and apply to air carriers 
under parts 121 and 135. No such statutory obligation exists for part 
91 operations. Therefore, although the FAA encourages fractional 
ownership programs and other corporate aviation organizations to 
consider establishing drug and alcohol testing programs, those programs 
would be separate and apart from the Federally mandated testing 
programs. In that regard, the company testing programs may not use the 
forms that are required for the Federally mandated testing programs to 
document their testing. These forms are the Federal Drug Testing 
Custody and Control Form and the U.S. Department of Transportation 
(DOT) Alcohol Testing Form. Drug and alcohol testing programs that are 
not part of the Federally mandated systems must develop their own 
forms.
    In any case, with or without a drug and alcohol testing program, 
all pilots must comply with Sec.  91.17, which prohibits a person from 
acting or attempting to act as a crewmember of an aircraft while under 
the influence of drugs or alcohol.
    The relief provided to part 135 operations under Sec. Sec.  
135.251(c) and 135.255(c) is based on a practical consideration. There 
have been times when it has been difficult to locate maintenance 
personnel who are covered by a DOT drug and alcohol program. However, 
the FAA agrees with PASS that there should be a follow-up inspection of 
any emergency maintenance performed under the authority of these 
sections. The FAA has determined that the appropriate timing for this 
inspection should be the next time the aircraft is at a location where 
a person who is qualified under Sec. Sec.  135.251(c) and 135.255(c) is 
available. Sections 91.1047(d), 135.251(c), and 135.255(c) have been 
changed in the final rule to require the reinspection.

Certificate and Management Specifications Action (Sec.  13.19)

    The six commenters (an individual, a flight operations manager, New 
World Jet/EJA, NATA, and Flexjet) who address this proposed section 
agree that holders of management specifications should have appeal 
rights comparable to those available to certificate holders under 
current Sec.  13.19. Several commenters state that FAA should seek 
legislative authority if necessary.
    FAA Response: The FAA has determined that legislative authority is 
needed to provide appeal rights for fractional ownership program 
managers. Therefore, the proposed changes to Sec.  13.19 have not been 
included in the final rule, pending receipt of such authority.

Part 91, Subpart A, Truth-in-Leasing Clause

    NATA and Flexjet state that proposed Sec. Sec.  91.1009, 91.1011, 
91.1013, 91.1014 and 91.1015(a)(1) would make compliance with Sec.  
91.23 duplicative and unduly burdensome for program managers and 
fractional owners. Since Sec.  91.23 already exempts leases of aircraft 
to a certificate holder under part 121, 125, 135 or 141, NATA 
recommends amending Sec.  91.23(b) to add an exception for leases under 
a fractional ownership program.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees that Sec. Sec.  91.1009 through 
91.1015 adequately address the same content that is specified in Sec.  
91.23. Therefore, the FAA is not amending Sec.  91.23 to except 
fractional ownership programs.

Part 91, Subpart F

    PASS believes that there should be specific delineations about the 
use of subpart K aircraft in part 121 or 135 programs. PASS expands on 
this statement in its comment on proposed Sec. Sec.  91.1009(b)(2) and 
91.1035(c) where it states its belief that fractional aircraft should 
not be used for operating under parts 121 and 135. PASS states that the 
``only way for FAA to effectively and efficiently provide clear 
guidance and oversight is by ensuring separate rules for each type of 
operation.''
    FAA Response: It is not a unique situation for aircraft at 
different times to be operated under different rules. Currently, an 
aircraft can serve multiple operational uses, including flight 
instruction, aircraft rental, or air carrier operations. In all cases 
each operation must be conducted in accordance with the rules 
applicable to that operation. Therefore an aircraft that is used in a 
fractional ownership program under subpart K could also be used by a 
part 119 certificate holder in an air carrier operation provided the 
operator or owner meets the regulatory requirements for that operation.
    The final rule includes a clarifying change in Sec.  91.501(b)(10). 
The change makes it clearer that a fractional owner may not use a joint 
ownership arrangement specified in Sec.  91.501(b)(6) and that, if 
entering into an interchange agreement under paragraph (b)(6), the 
exchange of equal time for the operation must be properly accounted for 
as part of the total hours associated with the fractional owner's share 
of ownership. A joint ownership arrangement is incompatible with the 
definitional elements of a fractional ownership program prescribed in 
Sec.  91.1001(b)(5). An interchange arrangement is permissible provided 
the fractional ownership program contracts permit a fractional owner to 
enter into an interchange agreement with a party outside the fractional 
ownership program.

Part 91, Subpart K

Section 91.1001 Applicability

Citizenship
    One individual commenter questions the constitutionality of not 
requiring a fractional owner to be a citizen as required by Sec.  
119.33 for people certificated under part 119.
    FAA Response: FAA regulations and aviation law make a distinction 
between the citizenship requirements for registered owners of aircraft 
versus certificated air carriers or commercial operators. Part 119 
requires that applicants for certificates to operate under part 121 or 
135 must be U.S. citizens. It is the FAA's determination in this rule 
that a fractional ownership program is not an air carrier or commercial 
operation and that the program manager is not an operator subject to 
part 119. Therefore the citizenship requirements of part 119 do not 
apply to these programs or to the program manager.
    For aircraft owners, part 47 contains the requirements on 
citizenship for registration purposes. A foreign citizen may be an 
owner of a U.S. registered aircraft if he or she is a resident alien. 
Section 47.9 contains specific rules for corporations that are not U.S. 
citizens. As long as they comply with the part 47 rules, fractional 
owners may be foreign citizens.
Two Pilot Crews
    GAMA states that when the FOARC was considering this NPRM, aircraft 
certificated under part 23 were not part of fractional ownership 
programs (as defined by the NPRM). However, safe and efficient 
operations of part 23 aircraft are feasible under fractional programs, 
and FAA should make allowances for them to operate under the proposed 
part 91, subpart K. However, part 23 aircraft, including some 
turbofans, are typically certificated to fly safely with a single 
pilot. GAMA therefore recommends that two pilots should not be required 
for part 23 aircraft to qualify for part 91, subpart K operations.

[[Page 54536]]

    FAA Response: With respect to aircraft certificated under part 23, 
FAA believes that the deviation authority provided in Sec.  91.1049 is 
adequate to cover situations where a two-pilot crew is not necessary.
Management Specifications
    NATA and Flexjet state their belief that the FOARC intended that 
all fractional programs would be required to operate under part 91, 
subpart K, unless they elect to obtain certification under part 119. 
The commenters' concern is that the proposed rule language would not 
cover a person who is actually operating as a fractional owner but who 
does not apply for management specifications. The commenters recommend 
the addition of a new Sec.  91.1002 that would contain language clearly 
stating that the rules of subpart K apply ``to a person who engages in 
any operation governed by this subpart without appropriate management 
specifications.''
    FAA Response: FAA agrees with NATA and Flexjet that the intent of 
the NPRM was for all persons conducting fractional ownership operations 
to be subject to subpart K unless they elect to obtain certification 
under part 119. Therefore, a new paragraph (c) has been added to Sec.  
91.1001 to make it clear that the subpart applies to any person who 
engages in a fractional ownership operation as described and defined in 
Sec.  91.1001.
Program Manager
    NWJ and an individual believe that under Sec.  91.1001(b)(8) an 
individual or individuals should be specifically designated for 
accountability within the fractional operator's management 
specifications, not just the entity. This would be similar to the part 
119 requirements for required personnel that apply to on-demand part 
135 operations. The commenters believe that, at a minimum, an 
individual designated as ``Program Manager'', ``Director of 
Operations'', and ``Director of Maintenance'' should be required 
positions within the fractional operators' management specifications. 
PASS also believes that it will be necessary to identify a Director of 
Maintenance (DOM), with qualifications determined by the Administrator 
that are based on the size, scope and complexity of the fractional 
ownership program. The DOM would be the focal point for all 
correspondence and questions between the FSDO and the program 
management company concerning maintenance related issues.
    FAA Response: The FAA recognizes a need for management personnel 
and individuals designated for accountability within a program. Instead 
of designating specific positions, program managers will be asked to 
identify individuals that the FAA can contact on specific issues, such 
as operations and maintenance, and who are authorized to sign the 
management specifications. However, if a fractional ownership program 
manager elects to maintain program aircraft using a continuous 
airworthiness maintenance program (CAMP), the position of Director of 
Maintenance would be required (See Sec.  91.1413(b)(1)).
Minimum Fractional Ownership Share
    PASS believes that Sec.  91.1001(b)(4) should be changed so that 
the requirement for \1/16\th share minimum ownership includes a 
monetary cost for the fractional aircraft along with the minimum share 
requirement. For instance, an aircraft valued at over 2 million dollars 
could be a \1/16\th minimum share but an aircraft under 2 million 
dollars should be \1/8\th share as a minimum. This would help prevent 
the possibility of a program manager selling many shares of a 1973 
Cessna 172 at low cost shares, circumventing the meaning of the 
fractional ownership program and actually conducting low fee air 
charter operations without a part 135 air charter operating 
certificate. Additionally, under the proposed definition a person could 
purchase a \1/17\th share and not be under the umbrella of fractional 
ownership. PASS does not believe this was the FAA's intent.
    Jet Sales & Services, Inc. objects to the proposed concept of 
``minimum fractional ownership interest'' when there are many other 
ways to control an asset in the dynamic U.S. business environment other 
than ownership, such as exclusive lease arrangements which should be 
given the same constructive treatment as ownership. Jet Sales states 
that an on-demand air charter certificate holder can lease aircraft 
and, in fact, that aircraft may have joint uses such as serving as 
private and/or corporate aircraft transportation. Also, scheduled 
airlines lease aircraft as well as other assets. Jet Sales believes 
that lease arrangements must be allowed in fractional programs.
    Aviation Charter Services expresses concern that subleasing 
arrangements by a share owner would violate the \1/16\th requirement 
and that if subleasing of a share is allowed, the person subleasing 
should have to hold an operating certificate and follow part 135 
regulations.
    EJA believes that the final rule should clarify the regulatory 
ramifications of a fractional ownership interest not meeting the 
minimum requirement of an interest equal to, or greater than, one-
sixteenth of a subsonic, fixed-wing aircraft or one-thirty-second of a 
rotorcraft aircraft. EJA suggests that the final rule should specify 
that any system of aircraft exchange which meets the definition of 
``fractional ownership program'' in all respects except that one or 
more of the fractional owners possess less than a ``minimum fractional 
ownership interest'' will be required to conduct program operations for 
such owners under appropriate air carrier regulations rather than under 
subpart K.
    FAA Response: The FAA has determined that the minimum share 
requirement is adequate to define an ownership interest and the 
addition of a monetary cost does not add any value.
    In response to the comments about lease arrangements, the FAA 
considers a long-term lease to be equivalent to an ownership interest. 
Therefore, leasing is allowed under subpart K. Any lease or sublease 
arrangement may not be smaller than the minimum \1/16\th share 
requirement.
    The FAA agrees with the suggestion by EJA that the regulation 
should explain the ramifications of a fractional operation not meeting 
the minimum interest requirements. The regulation has been modified to 
add Sec.  91.1005(c) to make it clear that fractional ownership 
programs with more than 16 owners per aircraft, including sublease 
shares that result in an ownership interest smaller than \1/16\th, must 
be operated by a part 119 certificate holder under part 135 or 121, as 
applicable.
Two or More Aircraft
    NATA and Flexjet support the requirement for two or more airworthy 
aircraft as an essential element of a fractional ownership program. 
However, a bona fide fractional aircraft program, especially a new 
entrant, might only have two aircraft in the program. While this 
satisfies the requirement of the rule, there may be times when one of 
the program aircraft is temporarily unairworthy because of mechanical 
failure or required maintenance or inspection. Such brief and routine 
occurrences should not affect the ability of the program to continue to 
operate under subpart K. NATA and Flexjet recommend that the FAA make 
this clear in the Final Rule.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not believe that a rule change is 
necessary since this kind of intermittent occurrence is in the course 
of normal business and would not be considered a violation of the two 
airworthy aircraft requirement. It is expected that an

[[Page 54537]]

aircraft would be temporarily out of service for maintenance or repair. 
Further, because of aircraft sales or other factors, there may be short 
periods when the two aircraft requirement cannot be met. A key element 
of a fractional ownership program is the dry lease exchange provision 
that will mandate that two or more aircraft be available in the long 
term.
Dry Leasing
    An individual states that Sec.  91.1002(b)(2) and (b)(7), 
discussing dry lease requirements without crew members and fractional 
ownership program management services requirements to provide aircraft, 
crews, maintenance, crew training and record keeping, are hard to 
understand and appear to be in conflict with each other.
    FAA Response: The arrangements described in Sec.  91.1001(b)(2) and 
(b)(7) ((b)(8) in final rule) are distinct and different, but they are 
not in conflict with each other. The dry lease arrangement described in 
Sec.  91.1001(b)(2) is an agreement among fractional owners that allows 
them to use aircraft owned by other fractional owners within the same 
program. The dry lease exchange provision facilitates the use of the 
owners' aircraft. The program manager does not provide the aircraft, 
rather the program manager's role is to schedule the aircraft from 
within the dry lease exchange pool and to provide other aviation 
expertise and services to the owners, as described in renumbered 
paragraph (b)(8).
Affiliate Fractional Ownership Program
    PASS believes that an affiliate fractional ownership program, as 
provided in Sec.  91.1001(b)(6)(ii), should not be allowed because 
there would not be effective controls for FAA oversight and 
surveillance. FAA inspectors could not schedule inspections and 
surveillance efficiently. Additionally, PASS believes it would be very 
confusing in determining operational control of program aircraft 
between affiliate program management companies.
    NATA and Flexjet believe that the decision about whether program 
managers are affiliated should be made once at the time of initial FAA 
approval of a program (or at the time a new program is started by an 
affiliated manager) at the national level by a headquarters-based FAA 
official who has developed an expertise in an area and who can make 
uniform decisions in the matter. Once the determination is made at the 
national level, the program management specifications should include a 
reference to any affiliated program managers and there should be no 
revisiting of the issue without good cause.
    The Teamsters disagree with the proposal to allow ``affiliates'' to 
be part of the ``interchange agreement'' where an individual who 
purchases a share of an aircraft operated by a specific program manager 
can now be ``sold off'' to an affiliate while maintaining the same 
rights and benefits as if he was in the original program manager's 
operation. The commenter believes that there is no guarantee of 
proportional and equal aircraft use between owners, or that an 
affiliate aircraft is even a fractionally owned aircraft. In response 
to the FAA's request for comments on this issue, the Teamsters state 
that this concept would not ensure that owners have legal possession, 
custody, and use of an affiliate aircraft. The Teamsters believe that, 
under the proposal, if a part 135 on-demand charter company became an 
affiliate, it would not have to comply with part 135 regulations when 
chartering out one of its aircraft to a fractional owner.
    FAA Response: For an affiliate relationship to exist, the parties 
must be part of the same umbrella company and the relationship would 
have to be identified in the management specifications. The 40 percent 
holding of equity and voting power is presumed to be an adequate 
controlling interest to define an affiliate. Any affiliates will be 
identified in the management specifications and will be referenced in 
contractual and lease documents among the owners and the program 
manager. These management specifications and guidance are reviewed by 
FAA national and regional headquarters.
    The comment that an on-demand operation under part 135 could become 
an affiliate to circumvent the part 135 requirements and operate under 
subpart K is not a correct assumption. An affiliate represents a 
business or corporate organizational structure and does not define the 
operational requirements. Each affiliate program will need to be 
reviewed on a case by case basis to determine if it meets the 
applicability of this subpart.
Program Manual
    EJA comments that proposed Sec.  91.1001(b)(7)(v) defines the 
provision of fractional ownership program management services to 
include the development and use of a maintenance program manual. There 
is no other mention of this manual in the NPRM. Proposed Sec. Sec.  
91.1023 and 91.1025 require only a written program operating manual. 
Since maintenance manuals are not required under part 135 for aircraft 
with less than 10 seats, EJA believes it is unlikely that the FAA 
intends for part 91, subpart K to require maintenance manuals for all 
aircraft.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the EJA comment, and has deleted 
the reference to a maintenance manual.

Section 91.1003 Management Contract Between Owner and Program Manager

    EJA suggests clarifying language for paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 
section that would replace the phrase ``program log books and 
maintenance records'' with the phrase ``log books and maintenance 
records maintained by the program manager.''
    Flexjet recommends deletion of either paragraph (b) or (c) of this 
section because they are duplicative.
    NBAA recommends that paragraph (d) of this section be deleted 
because this commenter believes that the ``FAA must retain full, 
unrestricted access to every aircraft owner of U.S.-registered 
aircraft, regardless of contractual arrangements designed for 
efficiency * * *'' At the same time, NBAA recommends that ``in the 
development of inspector guidance and additional preamble mentioned, 
that the FAA, under ordinary circumstances but at its sole discretion, 
communicate primarily with the fractional program manager on issues 
related to program aircraft.''
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with this suggestion that the phrase 
``program log books and maintenance records'' should be replaced with 
the phrase ``log books and maintenance records maintained by the 
program manager.'' This change appears in the final rule language. In 
addition the FAA has combined paragraphs (b) and (c) into one paragraph 
(b) that addresses both the right to inspect and the right to audit. 
The FAA has also removed the word ``solely'' from proposed paragraph 
(d) and has redesignated the paragraph as paragraph (c). Also, to 
clarify the FAA's relationship with the fractional owner, a new 
paragraph (d) has been added to state that the contract must 
acknowledge the FAA's right to contact the owner directly, should it 
choose to do so.

Section 91.1007 Advance Notice of Non-Program Aircraft Substitutions

    Several commenters state concern with the proposed language of this 
section, which states that the program manager ``shall make an effort 
to notify a fractional owner prior to the flight when a non-program 
aircraft is substituted for a program aircraft for the use of the 
fractional owner.''
    EJA states that the rule should be revised to make clear, as does 
the NPRM

[[Page 54538]]

preamble, that when a non-program aircraft is substituted, it must be 
operated by a certificate holder with the appropriate authority. EJA 
also suggests that the final rule should clarify that a program manager 
may elect to conduct a particular fractional ownership program flight 
for a fractional owner under part 121 or 135, assuming that the program 
manager is properly certificated to undertake those operations under 
those parts of the regulations.
    PASS believes that if non-program aircraft are to be used, they 
should be identified in the contract and that a list of non-program 
aircraft should be provided to each fractional owner and to the 
Administrator.
    The Teamsters and an individual believe that the program manager 
should be required to do more than just ``make an effort'' to notify 
the fractional owner.
    A pilot in a fractional ownership program states that customer 
notification of sell-offs ``when possible'' clearly highlights that 
fractional companies need to change operational aspects of the flight 
to the extent that safety is compromised. Large problems occur in 
communication with crew and passengers. There have been continual 
problems where aspects of flights have been changed and either/both 
crew and passengers were not notified. This commenter believes customer 
sell-offs will compromise the safety and security of flight operations 
regarding many aspects of 14 CFR 61/135/l21.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenters that the proposed 
Sec.  91.1007 was not sufficiently clear. In addition, we question the 
practicality of the term ``make an effort to notify'' the fractional 
owner prior to the flight. However, we agree there must be a method for 
parties to know who is in operational control of that flight. 
Procedures and notification of aircraft substitution should be 
discussed as part of the contract between the program manager and the 
owner. This is done to ensure the owner knows that some flights may be 
conducted by an air carrier, that there is a clear understanding of who 
is in operational control of each flight, and to track program flight 
hours.
    In the final rule, the section title has been changed and the 
section has been revised. The text of paragraph (a) has been revised to 
state that ``Except as provided in Sec.  91.501(b), when a non-program 
aircraft is used to substitute for a program flight, the non-program 
aircraft must be operated in compliance with part 121 or part 135.'' 
The phrase ``shall make an effort'' has been removed and the revised 
language makes clear that when a non-program aircraft is substituted, 
it must be operated by a certificate holder with the appropriate 
authority.
    New paragraph (b) makes it clear that a program manager may conduct 
a flight under part 121 or 135, either at his own election or at the 
request of a fractional owner, only if the program manager holds a part 
119 certificate authorizing those operations. In this case a program 
manager is no longer acting as a program manager, but instead is a 
certificate holder who is in operational control of that flight. A 
fractional owner's aircraft could be used in an operation under part 
121 or 135, if it is dry leased to a part 119 certificate holder and 
authorized in that certificate holder's operations specifications. That 
certificate holder must conduct the operation under the operating rules 
of part 121 or 135, as appropriate.
    New paragraph (c) was added to ensure that a fractional owner is 
informed whether a flight is being conducted as a program flight or is 
being conducted under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter. The method 
and timing of such notification is to be determined between the program 
manager and fractional owners. Further, Sec.  91.1027(e) requires that 
the program manager provide a written document to be carried on each 
flight stating who is in operational control of that flight and under 
which FAA regulations the flight is being conducted. That paragraph 
specifies that the document must be carried on board to the flight's 
destination and includes record retention requirements.
    The FAA does not agree with the suggestion by PASS that if non-
program aircraft are to be used, they should be identified in the 
contract and that a list of non-program aircraft should be provided to 
each fractional owner and to the Administrator. The FAA believes that 
this kind of scenario would be unworkable and unnecessary. However, the 
contract should make clear that when a program aircraft is not 
available, a non-program aircraft will be provided that will be 
operated under part 121 or 135.

Sections 91.1009, 91.1011 Clarification of When Owner Is in Operational 
Control and Implications of Owner Being in Operational Control

    PASS believes that lines of operational control need to be made 
clear. The safety of the aircraft lies directly with the program 
manager for FAA compliance. PASS states that the owner should never be 
in operational control; this should remain with the Program Manager.
    FAA Response: The FAA believes that the rule language does make 
clear the lines of operational control. When an aircraft is operated 
under subpart K on a program flight, the fractional owner for whom the 
operation is being conducted is in operational control and is 
responsible for compliance with all applicable regulations. The fact 
that the fractional owner has delegated certain tasks to the program 
manager does not relieve the fractional owner of responsibility, 
similar to situations where aircraft owners contract for maintenance 
and other required services.

Section 91.1013 Owner's Understanding and Acknowledgment of Operational 
Control Responsibilities

    PASS and the Teamsters believe that the reality that fractional 
owners are nothing but passengers on their aircraft needs to be 
recognized. Fractional owners have no decision-making responsibility in 
the actual operation of the aircraft. The fractional ownership program 
manager needs to be held liable for compliance with the FAA regulations 
for the maintenance, aircrew, training and operation of the fractional 
aircraft. The degree of operational control is not equal between the 
fractional owners and the program managers.
    An individual recommends that Sec.  91.1013(a)(1)(iii) be stricken 
from the final rule because it is inappropriate, unnecessary and 
potentially harmful. The commenter states that the FAA's regulations 
are an inappropriate means of alerting members of the aviation 
community to the tort ramifications of their activities and states that 
the FAA has not done so with respect to others in the aviation 
community (for example, pilots, mechanics or traditional owners of 
aircraft).
    The commenter states that this provision does not alert fractional 
owners to anything that has not always been true for all owners of 
aircraft, fractional or not. Whether a fractional owner is deemed to 
exercise operational control will likely continue to be based on actual 
control, independently of the fractional characterization of the 
arrangement.
    The commenter states that another potential consequence of the 
provision is that it might be misinterpreted by the fractional 
management company as an indication that it is relieved of its tort 
duties by virtue of the owner's required acknowledgment of his 
responsibilities. As urged above, if the fractional arrangement causes 
a change to the

[[Page 54539]]

traditional allocation of tort liability between the owner on the one 
hand, and the pilot, mechanic, or other independent contractor on the 
other, that change results only because the owner has in fact chosen to 
exercise actual control. The management company should not be led to 
believe that its tort exposure has been diminished by the mere 
characterization of the arrangement as fractional, or by the owner's 
acknowledgment of operational control, when the true essence of the 
relationship is the total entrustment of all operational functions to 
the management company.
    FAA Response: As stated previously, the FAA believes that the idea 
that each fractional owner will, at times, have operational control of 
an aircraft being used on his or her behalf is at the heart of the 
fractional ownership concept. Many of the details of the contractual 
relationship between a prospective or actual fractional owner and a 
program manager are not safety related and therefore are not a concern 
of the FAA. However, the FAA believes that it is important for 
prospective or actual fractional owners to know and understand the 
responsibilities they will assume as a fractional owner.
    The FAA agrees that this type of requirement has not been imposed 
on other regulated entities. Because of the unique aspects of the 
fractional ownership arrangement, the number of the owners, and the 
varying levels of owner expertise, the FAA believes the implications of 
operational control, including liability risk and enforcement actions, 
must be clearly expressed and acknowledged by the owners. Fractional 
owners need to understand that when safety requirements are not met 
they are subject to FAA enforcement actions or liability risks. 
Suspension or revocation of management specifications would affect the 
operation of the entire fractional ownership program, impacting the 
program manager and all of the fractional owners in the program.

Section 91.1014 Manager's Responsibility for Ensuring Compliance

    NWJ and an individual state that the proposed paragraph further 
demonstrates the need to designate an individual as ``Program Manager'' 
rather than an entity. They believe that, in order for a fractional 
ownership program manager to ``ensure that its program * * * (is) 
sufficient to ensure owner compliance * * *,'' the accountability of an 
entity alone may not be sufficient. PASS believes that this paragraph 
should be deleted, as it confuses owner compliance with operational 
control.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that there is a need to have a system 
to identify contacts within a program management company. The program 
operating manual required under Sec.  91.1023 and Sec.  91.1025 will 
spell out procedures and identify responsibilities. To avoid the 
confusion raised by the PASS comment, the FAA has inserted subheadings 
into the final rule so that it is clear that Sec. Sec.  91.1014-91.1443 
address program manager responsibilities. Furthermore, Sec.  91.1014 
has been revised to clarify the operation process and requirements for 
issuance of management specifications. This issuance is based on a 
finding that the program manager meets the applicable requirements, is 
properly and adequately equipped, and is able to conduct a safe 
operation. The section title has been changed to ``Issuing or denying 
management specifications.''

Sections 91.1015, 91.1017 Management Specifications and Amending 
Program Manager's Management Specifications

    NBAA states that, in addition to defining the contents of the 
program manager's management specifications as well as the process for 
amending them, the FAA also must develop rules that define the 
management specification application process (including any information 
required as part of the application) and define a process to issue or 
deny management specifications.
    NATA and Flexjet state that all fractional program managers, both 
existing and start-up, will be required to make application for 
management specifications from the FAA. However, the NPRM does not 
identify the process by which a prospective program manager would apply 
and receive management specifications. Therefore, NATA and Flexjet 
support clear information within the regulation specifying how 
application is to be made, what supporting materials must be submitted 
with a formal application and what criteria the FAA will use as a basis 
to deny or issue management specifications.
    PASS believes that a list of items should be added to the 
management specifications, such as carrying hazardous materials, 
geographic operating area for fractional operations, VMC or IMC 
operating capabilities, navigation authorizations, and cargo carrying 
capabilities. PASS states that Management Specifications should be 
handled just as Operation Specifications are currently handled by part 
135 certificate holders.
    FAA Response: The management specification application process will 
be similar to the process for issuing operations specifications under 
part 119 for persons conducting operations under parts 121 and 135. 
Additional rule language has been added in Sec.  91.1014 to make it 
clear that management specifications are issued to the program manager 
on behalf of the owners if the program meets the regulatory 
requirements of subpart K. The management specifications will be 
processed on the FAA operations specifications subsystem and will be 
managed by the same procedures used to manage operations specifications 
for air carriers operating under parts 121 and 135. The application 
process is referenced in the final rule and will be detailed in 
guidance documents. Section 91.1015(a)(10) allows the Administrator to 
specify additional items to be contained in management specifications. 
This gives the FAA and the program manager the flexibility to amend or 
revise the management specifications as appropriate.

Section 91.1016 Confidential Information (Suggested)

    NATA and Flexjet comment that, because subpart K will require 
fractional owners and program managers to provide commercial and/or 
financial information from time-to-time, they strongly recommend that 
certain information be protected as confidential. NATA and Flexjet 
recommend the addition of a separate section to address this issue.
    FAA Response: As is the case with all Freedom of Information Act 
issues, the FAA will handle requests that information be treated as 
privileged or confidential commercial or financial information under 
the Department of Transportation rules in 49 CFR part 7, particularly 
Sec. Sec.  7.13 and 7.14. Whether specific information about fractional 
owners (for example, names, addresses) is made available to the public 
by program managers will depend on the contractual relationship between 
these parties. Fractional owners will be identified in the files of the 
FAA's Aircraft Registry in Oklahoma City and these files are available 
to the general public. Section 91.1015(b) allows the program manager to 
keep a current list of fractional owners at its principal base of 
operations or other location and referenced in its management 
specifications, instead of listing all owners' names in that document. 
This provides for a degree of confidentiality of owner information.

[[Page 54540]]

Section 91.1019 Conducting Tests and Inspections

    PASS believes that the FAA needs the authority to conduct en route 
inspections in Sec.  91.1019(b)(2) as in part 121 and 135. Crew 
coordination and safe-operating procedures are paramount for the safety 
of the passengers. The only way that the FAA can provide effective 
oversight and surveillance of these types of operations is by 
conducting en route inspections. PASS states that there continues to be 
problems with Crew Resource Management, especially with the newer 
``Glass Cockpit'' aircraft and that information overload is a constant 
challenge to the pilots. Surveillance of the crews will allow an 
unbiased evaluation of the crew performance, which in turn will 
validate how effective the training program is working. This will 
provide valuable insights that can be used to improve future training 
requirements. PASS recommends that this paragraph should at least be 
changed to include en route inspections on aircraft that require two 
flight crewmembers for operation of the aircraft.
    EJA states that proposed Sec.  91.1019(c) requires that each 
employee of a program manager that is responsible for maintaining the 
program manager's records must make those records available to the FAA. 
EJA believes that FOARC intended this requirement to apply only to 
safety-related records, and not generally to all documents maintained 
by a program manager. In a similar provision of the NPRM, the FAA used 
the phrase ``pertaining to operational safety of the program, including 
all program logbooks and maintenance records' to specify which program 
manager records an owner has the right to inspect. EJA recommends that 
the quoted phrase be added to Sec.  91.1019(c).
    NWJ and an individual object to proposed Sec.  91.1019(c) because 
the paragraph does not specify which records are being referenced, for 
example, maintenance records, pilot records. Also, the commenters 
believe, if such responsibility exists, the person who maintains that 
responsibility should be named in the management specifications.
    Flexjet states that Sec.  91.1019(b)(1) should be clarified to 
state that the Management Specifications may be maintained not only at 
its principal base of operations, but also at a place approved by the 
Administrator, as is provided in Sec. Sec.  91.1015(e) and 91.1027(a).
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the concern raised by EJA but 
believes the language suggested by EJA is too narrow. The records that 
must be made available to the Administrator would be any records 
required by or necessary to demonstrate compliance with subpart K.
    The FAA disagrees with the recommendation by PASS to require en 
route inspections for fractional program operations. The complexities 
of the operation precludes scheduling en route inspections. This is 
similar to the philosophy applied to on demand part 135 operations. En 
route inspections are only required for commuter operations and are not 
required as part of the national work program for on demand operations. 
Furthermore, the FAA has other means of effectively surveilling the 
operation, including acceptance and approval of procedures, manuals, 
and training programs. As part of its implementation strategy, the FAA 
is developing a work program for fractional ownership operations that 
mirrors the national guidelines for surveillance and inspection of part 
135 on demand operations. The FAA also disagrees with the suggestion 
made by NWJ that a person responsible for the records should be named 
in the management specifications. The operations manual will define 
personnel responsibilities.
    The FAA agrees with the suggestion by Flexjet and has modified the 
final rule so that paragraph (b)(1) permits the management 
specifications to be maintained at the program manager's principal 
place of business or at a place approved by the Administrator.

Section 91.1021 Internal Safety Reporting

    PASS believes that fractional owners should be added to proposed 
Sec.  91.1021(b) and required to respond to an aviation incident/
accident.
    Flexjet currently utilizes anonymous internal safety reporting 
procedures for its crewmembers. Flexjet strongly supports safety 
reporting, and supports an environment of safety without retribution. 
However, Flexjet recommends that FAA implementation guidance should 
clarify for the FAA and the industry that, although no retribution may 
be taken against an employee for filing a report in accordance with 
this section, such a filing cannot prevent the program manager from 
taking corrective action in response to the underlying safety issue.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with the recommendation by PASS. 
The NTSB regulations provide NTSB with broad authority to get 
information from all persons with knowledge related to an incident or 
accident. The owner has responsibility under the NTSB regulations to 
notify the NTSB of an incident, accident, or overdue aircraft. The 
accomplishment of this notification can be delegated to a program 
manager. The procedures required by Sec.  91.1021(b) and included in 
the program operations manual establish the means for the owners to 
fulfill their accident response responsibilities. Therefore, FAA 
believes no change to the regulatory language is required.
    The FAA agrees with the comment by Flexjet and would expect such 
corrective action should take place in response to underlying safety 
issues.

Section 91.1023 Program Operating Manual Requirements

    EJA states that in proposed Sec.  91.1023(h), there is a reference 
to an ``approved inspection program operations manual,'' a term that is 
not defined in the proposed rule. EJA thinks that this reference should 
be to an ``approved `aircraft inspection program,' '' which is 
addressed in proposed Sec.  91.1109. EJA recommends that the ``approved 
aircraft inspection program'' concept from Sec.  91.1109 be 
incorporated into Sec.  91.1023. Also in Sec.  91.1023(h), the 
reference to ``stations'' may be confused with the term as used in part 
121 or 135. EJA recommends that the term ``stations'' be replaced with 
the term ``facilities.''
    EJA also states that program managers that are also certificated 
under part 121 or 135 should be able to use, for subpart K purposes, 
the general operations manual from those certificated operations, so 
long as the manual addresses differences between the operations under 
part 121 or 135 and the operations under part 91, subpart K. EJA 
recommends that Sec. Sec.  91.1023 and 91.1025 be amended to provide 
this option.
    EJA further comments that under proposed Sec.  91.1023, the program 
operating manual is a document that is accepted by the FAA. However, 
some of the procedures contained in that manual, such as the 
destination airport analysis under proposed Sec.  91.1037, must be 
approved by the FAA. EJA recommends that Sec.  91.1037(c) be amended to 
clarify this.
    PASS believes that the program operating manual should be accepted 
by the Administrator and the program management company held 
responsible for keeping it current and up-to-date. PASS also believes 
that if the operating manual is not in hard copy form, and is 
transmitted electronically, as provided under Sec.  91.1023(g), a means 
must be made to ensure that the information is

[[Page 54541]]

current. PASS further comments that, contrary to Sec.  91.1023(h), the 
program-operating manual should be carried on every aircraft in case 
the aircraft has to divert to another destination or flies into an 
airport that does not have approved maintenance services or personnel.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the recommendation by EJA that 
paragraph (h) should reference ``approved aircraft inspection program'' 
and has changed paragraph (h) accordingly. The FAA also agrees that the 
term ``stations'' should be changed to ``facilities.'' The FAA agrees 
with EJA's comment that program managers certificated under part 119 
should be able to use the general operations manual from a part 119 
certificated operation if procedures are applicable to subpart K and if 
any differences are clearly stated. Use of a single manual for 
different types of operations must be authorized by the FAA in the 
management specifications.
    The FAA agrees with the comment by EJA that manuals that are 
``accepted'' sometimes contain certain portions that must be 
``approved.'' The FAA does not think any change to the rule is needed. 
The details of the procedures will be addressed in guidance documents.
    The FAA agrees with PASS that the program operating manual must be 
acceptable to the Administrator and kept current. The FAA agrees that 
appropriate portions of the program operating manual must be carried on 
the aircraft when it is away from the principal operations base. This 
is reflected in Sec. Sec.  91.1023(a) and (f).

Section 91.1025 Program Operating Manual Contents

    NWJ and an individual state that the program operating manual 
should also contain the name or names of persons responsible for 
updating the manuals.
    FAA Response: Section 91.1023(a) requires the program manager to 
keep the manual current. While the names of persons delegated to 
perform this function may be included in the manual, the FAA does not 
believe this should be mandatory.

Section 91.1027 Recordkeeping

    PASS believes that the program manager should be responsible for 
keeping a list of qualified mechanics and repair facilities acceptable 
to perform maintenance and should identify and notify the Administrator 
of those required to follow an FAA approved drug testing program.
    FAA Response: The program manager is required to ensure that 
persons who perform maintenance are qualified. The final rule allows an 
exception for emergency maintenance for those otherwise qualified 
personnel who do not meet the drug and alcohol education provisions of 
Sec.  91.1047 or the testing provisions of Sec. Sec.  135.251 and 
135.255.
    The FAA believes it would be an administrative burden for the 
program manager to maintain a list of all qualified mechanics and 
repair facilities and to notify the Administrator of those mechanics or 
facilities that follow an FAA approved testing program. Instead the 
program manager must notify the FAA of all persons who perform 
emergency maintenance who do not meet the applicable drug and alcohol 
education or testing requirements.
    In the final rule Sec.  91.1027(a) is amended to make the 
terminology consistent with Sec.  91.1015.

Section 91.1029 Flight Scheduling and Locating Requirements

    PASS believes that all flights should be required to file a flight 
plan for all operations, visual flight rules (VFR) or IFR.
    FAA Response: The requirement in Sec.  91.1029 was derived from the 
existing requirement in part 135. The program manager must have a 
process for flight locating and a flight plan is one way to facilitate 
flight locating. In most situations subject to subpart K, additional 
procedures will exist. For turbo-jet operations it is expected that an 
IFR flight plan will be filed. The program manager must have an 
adequate system in place and the FAA expects that most companies will 
meet this requirement by filing a flight plan. For clarification the 
final rule Sec.  91.1029 has been amended to add the word ``adequate'' 
to paragraphs (a) and (b).

Section 91.1035 Passenger Awareness

    A flight operations manager recommends deletion of the proposed 
requirement that passengers be advised of the name of the entity in 
operational control of the flight since proposed Sec. Sec.  91.1009--
91.1013 have already clearly established that ``the owner be advised 
and sign a document defining the implications of operational control.''
    PASS believes that if additional passengers are picked up 
separately, they should be briefed on emergency procedures and that all 
briefings should be in languages spoken by the passengers.
    Atlantic Aviation Flight Services comments on what it believes is a 
disparity between the current part 135 regulations regarding passenger 
briefings and the proposed changes in the subpart K revision. Atlantic 
believes that these regulations should be the same regarding the 
content of this regulation and when the briefings need to be 
accomplished. The commenter believes there is an assumption in proposed 
Sec.  91.1035(g) that there is no need for a passenger to listen more 
than once to a briefing since he or she would be familiar with the 
safety aspects after one briefing. The commenter believes that if this 
is the case, it should apply to the part 135 regulation.
    Flexjet recommends that a provision be added to authorize 
delegation to a flight attendant or other crewmembers of the 
responsibility to brief passengers.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with the commenter who recommends 
deletion of the proposed requirement that passengers be advised of the 
name of the entity in operational control of the flight. The 
identification of the entity having operational control is a critical 
aspect of the fractional ownership concept. However, paragraph (c) of 
Sec.  91.1035 also requires the briefing to state whether the flight is 
conducted as a program flight or a commercial operation under part 121 
or 135 of the regulations. The FAA is deleting this provision because 
there is no regulatory requirement under part 121 or 135 to state the 
operating rules under which the flight is being conducted.
    In response to the comments on when the briefing is conducted the 
FAA agrees that there is an ambiguity as to whether briefings must be 
done before each take-off, or before a previous flight on the aircraft. 
The FAA is deleting proposed paragraph (g) and requiring that prior to 
each take-off the pilot in command must ensure that all passengers have 
been briefed.
    The FAA does not agree that language comparable to Sec.  91.1035(g) 
should be added to part 135. While there are minor language 
differences, both rules require that all passengers receive a briefing.
    The FAA disagrees with the comment that all briefings should be 
conducted in languages spoken by the passengers. Briefing cards are 
used to supplement the oral briefing. Briefing passengers in all 
languages is impractical and is not required for operations under part 
121 or 135.
    One commenter recommends that a provision be added to allow 
delegating the responsibility to brief passengers. This change is not 
necessary because the rule already provides in paragraphs (d) and (e) 
that the briefing can be given by a pilot, another crewmember, or a 
recording.

Section 91.1041 Aircraft Proving Tests (Also Sec.  135.145)

    EJA recommends several amendments, primarily to make it clear

[[Page 54542]]

that an aircraft that has already had proving tests (for example, under 
part 121 or part 135) need not undergo further proving tests.
    Jet Sales & Services, Inc., states that proving tests are not 
efficient and are not appropriate because they are nonproductive 
expenditures of funds.
    Kaiser Air, Inc., is strongly in favor of the proposed change to 
Sec.  135.145. Likewise, NWJ and an individual applaud the efforts of 
the FOARC committee and the FAA to provide qualified part 135 operators 
relief from costly proving runs under the provision of Sec.  
135.145(b).
    FAA Response: Proving tests are necessary to evaluate each 
applicant's ability to conduct operations safely and in accordance with 
the applicable regulations. Proving tests consist of a demonstration of 
the applicant's ability to operate and maintain an aircraft new to the 
operator's fleet or the applicant's ability to conduct a particular 
kind of operation such as part 121 domestic, flag or supplemental. 
Current Sec.  135.145 requires an applicant to successfully complete 
proving tests before the FAA may authorize the operation of each type 
of turbojet aircraft or each type of aircraft for which two pilots are 
required for operations under visual flight rules (VFR). The FAA 
disagrees with the comment that proving tests are not efficient or 
productive. The basic principle is that each company has the 
responsibility to show that it can operate each aircraft safely and in 
compliance with the requirements.
    Proving tests are necessary for operations being approved under 
subpart K, even if the aircraft has already had proving tests under 
part 121 or part 135 operations, because the procedures and 
requirements are different and the program manager needs to prove that 
it can conduct subpart K operations safely and within the regulations. 
Where there are similarities between the operations, the FAA will 
consider modifying the test requirements, including the use of non-
flight table-top exercises. The FAA will consider on a case by case 
basis how extensive the proving tests need to be for companies that 
have previously approved aircraft under part 121 or 135, or for 
companies that have been operating safely under part 91.
    In the final rule, the FAA has added language requiring validation 
tests for both subpart K of part 91 and part 135, codifying what is 
currently described in the Air Transportation Operations Inspectors 
Handbook (Order 8400.10, Volume 3, Chapter 9). That chapter of the 
Handbook describes how FAA inspectors conduct proving and validation 
tests to evaluate an applicant's ability to conduct operations safely 
and in accordance with the applicable regulations before issuing an 
operating certificate, adding a new aircraft to the applicant's fleet, 
or authorizing a new area or route. Validation tests are specifically 
used to evaluate requests for authorization to operate outside U.S. 
airspace, to add a long-range navigation system or flight navigator, to 
operate into a new area, to add special or unique navigation 
procedures, or for special performance or operational authorizations.
    For fractional ownership programs under subpart K, it is necessary 
to add specific language on validation tests to Sec.  91.1041, in 
addition to the proposed language on proving tests, in order to specify 
how the FAA will determine under Sec.  91.1014 that the applicant is 
properly and adequate equipped and is able to provide program 
management services. For part 135, the new language is primarily a 
codification of the procedures they already go through to obtain 
various authorizations.
    An addition to the validation test requirements has been added in 
final Sec. Sec.  91.1041(d) and (e) and 135.145(d) and (e) to require 
validation tests when a program manager or part 135 certificate holder 
adds to its operations an aircraft that is a new make or is of similar 
design to a previously approved aircraft. As a result of this final 
rule, such aircraft are no longer required to have proving tests. 
However, the FAA has determined that a validation test should be 
conducted to determine that the operator is capable of conducting 
operations safely with that aircraft and in compliance with the 
applicable regulatory standards. In most cases the applicant will not 
be required to conduct an actual flight to validate the aircraft. 
However, the FAA will conduct an in-depth review of the applicant's 
proposed procedures, training programs, manuals, facilities, and 
maintenance programs relevant to the new aircraft.
    The FAA will determine the level of demonstration required, 
depending on the similarity between the previously approved airplane 
and the new make and model. For example, the FAA may develop scenarios 
for different types of conditions or events and ask the program manager 
or certificate holder to show how it would follow the proper procedures 
in reacting to such conditions or events.
    For both proving tests and validation tests, the Administrator may 
authorize deviations from this section if the Administrator finds that 
special circumstances make full compliance with this section 
unnecessary. Also, proving tests and validation tests may be conducted 
simultaneously when appropriate.
    The following table summarizes the differences between the current 
proving test and validation test requirements for part 135 and the 
final rule requirements for fractional ownership programs under subpart 
K and certificate holders under part 135:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Final rule
  Comparison of current and   Current requirements    requirements for
final proving and validation      for part 135        part 135 and part
      test requirements                                 91, subpart K
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft (except turbojets)   Proving test          One time proving
 for for which 2 pilots are    required for each     test required for
 required under VFR.           aircraft unless       an aircraft, except
                               operator has          turbojets, for
                               previously proved     which 2 pilots are
                               that make and         required under VFR.
                               similar design        Validation test
                               aircraft under part   required for each
                               135. Deviation        additional make and
                               authority for         similar design
                               proving test          aircraft, unless
                               requirement.          operator has
                                                     previously proved
                                                     that make and
                                                     similar design
                                                     aircraft under
                                                     applicable part.
                                                     Deviation authority
                                                     for proving and
                                                     validation test
                                                     requirement.
Turbojet aircraft...........  Proving test          One time proving
                               required for each     test required for a
                               turbojet aircraft     turbojet aircraft.
                               unless operator has   Validation test
                               previously proved     required for each
                               that make and         additional turbojet
                               similar design        aircraft, unless
                               turbojet aircraft     operator has
                               under part 135.       previously proved
                               Deviation authority   that make and
                               for proving test      similar design
                               requirement.          turbojet aircraft
                                                     under applicable
                                                     part. Deviation
                                                     authority for
                                                     proving and
                                                     validation test
                                                     requirement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 54543]]

Section 91.1045 Additional Equipment Requirements

    The Teamsters comment that as proposed, this section would not 
require any aircraft used in a fractional ownership program to add any 
equipment not already required by another current regulation, for 
example, the requirement for GPWS and TCAS already exists for most 
turbojet aircraft. The commenter asks whether this section has any 
useful purpose other than to ensure that certain program managers do 
not have to retrofit their 75 Citation V Ultra turbojets with TCAS.
    Dassant Aviation recommends that the final rule include compliance 
dates to allow sufficient time for any newly required equipment to be 
ordered and installed. The compliance period should correspond to the 
stipulated period for such equipment in part 121/135.
    FAA Response: The intention of Sec.  91.1045 is to ensure that 
fractional program aircraft have the same equipment as for the same 
aircraft when used for part 121 supplemental operations or for part 135 
on-demand operations. While it is true that part 91 addresses GPWS and 
TCAS, those rules are not as stringent as the part 121 and 135 
requirements. For example, Sec.  91.221 states that any TCAS system 
installed must be approved by the Administrator and that if it is 
installed, it must be turned on and operating while the aircraft is in 
flight; however, it does not require the installation of TCAS 
equipment. The final rule has been rewritten to clarify which equipment 
rules apply to fractional ownership aircraft. This delineation is based 
on the 121/135 dividing line for nonscheduled operations. Aircraft that 
have more than 30 seats or a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds 
must follow the same equipment standards and applicable regulations as 
for supplemental operations conducted under part 121. Aircraft that 
have a passenger-seat configuration of 30 seats or fewer, excluding 
each crewmember, and a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less, and 
any rotorcraft must follow the same equipment standards and applicable 
regulations as for on-demand operations conducted under part 135.
    The only delayed compliance time provided in the part 121 and 135 
rules is for the installation of terrain awareness and warning systems, 
which are required by March 29, 2005. For existing fractional ownership 
programs the other equipment must be installed on or before the 
compliance date for the final rule, which will be 15 months after the 
date of publication in the Federal Register. Since many of the aircraft 
currently used in fractional ownership programs already meet the 
requirements, the FAA does not expect this to cause undue hardship. New 
entrant fractional ownership programs must have the other equipment 
installed before they receive their management specifications.

Section 91.1049 Personnel

    EJA recommends inclusion of language in proposed Sec.  91.1049(e) 
to clarify that scheduling or flight release personnel ``are able to 
perform their duties.''
    EJA also answered FAA's question concerning ``whether this proposal 
is appropriate for a single pilot operation permitted under the 
deviation provision contained in proposed Sec.  91.1049.'' EJA 
recommends that single pilot operations be addressed in the rule 
because if this problem is handled under deviation authority there will 
be ``wide variation in interpretation of the regulations by the 
different FSDO's throughout the country.''
    The Teamsters ask if the required ``staffing level'' of this 
section (3 pilots per aircraft) has to be full-time employees, or if 
they can be part-time help when needed.
    FAA Response: In response to EJA's comment on scheduling and flight 
release personnel, it is the responsibility of the program manager to 
ensure that all personnel are trained and qualified in accordance with 
the program manager's training program. The training program for 
scheduling and flight release personnel must be appropriate for the 
size and complexity of the operation.
    In response to EJA's concern about the FAA granting inconsistent 
deviations for single-pilot operations, the FAA is developing guidance 
for subpart K implementation to ensure that there is uniformity among 
the FSDO's for granting such deviations. The FAA needs to consider the 
size, complexity, and organizational structure of the new fractional 
owner programs that might exist in the future. The FAA needs to have 
the latitude and flexibility to grant deviations when appropriate.
    In response to the questions about staffing levels, program 
managers may use either full or part time employees, who may be either 
direct or contract employees. In the final rule, the FAA has changed to 
requirement to employ ``at least three pilots'' to ``an adequate number 
of pilots'' because there are so many variables and differences among 
fractional ownership programs that it would be difficult to enforce and 
would lead to an excessive number of deviation requests. The number of 
employees for a particular program manager would be determined by the 
need to have adequate staff available so that the program manager can 
meet other requirements of the subpart, such as the rest and duty 
rules. Also, the FAA will consider the needs of program managers during 
temporary situations, such as when hiring the initial cadre staff for 
startups and for companies adding new aircraft types, or, for small 
companies, the time between when one pilot leaves and another one is 
hired.

Section 91.1051 Pilot Safety Background Check

    NBAA, NATA, and Flexjet state that statutory authority is needed to 
give them access to motor vehicle driver records and other records that 
a program manager would be required to access in a safety background 
check. Such records are normally protected by the Privacy Act; however, 
in 1996 the Pilot Records Improvement Act provided air carriers with 
the responsibility and authority to check such records when hiring 
pilots.
    FAA Response: The FAA deleted paragraph Sec.  91.1051(c), which 
would have required a program manager to access motor vehicle driver 
records. This provision may be added when the necessary legislative 
authority is obtained. The other background safety check requirements 
of Sec.  91.1051 do not require legislative authority and remain in the 
final rule.

Section 91.1053 Flight Crew Experience

    AOPA states that the NPRM includes a requirement for flight crew 
experience, but uses an industry standard applicable for multi-engine 
turbine-powered aircraft. The operational demands and missions of 
smaller aircraft are different from those of turbine-powered multi-
engine aircraft, yet the NPRM does not make a distinction. AOPA 
believes the final rule must specifically address and delineate flight 
crew experience needs for non-turbine powered multi-engine and single-
engine aircraft. Also, AOPA comments that all of the crewmember 
experience requirements would only apply to those operations flown by 
flight crewmembers of the fractional ownership program manager under 
subpart K, not owner-flown flights.
    AOPA recommends that the FAA include a standard for non-turbine 
powered multi-engine engine aircraft similar to that used in part 135. 
The pilot in command requirement under proposed Sec.  91.1053 for these 
aircraft should be 1,200 hours. In addition AOPA recommends that these 
smaller aircraft operations not require a second

[[Page 54544]]

in command. A requirement of 500 hours should also be established for a 
single-engine aircraft pilot in command. AOPA states that accepting 
these recommendations would also require the FAA to alter the flight 
crewmember flight and duty time, training requirements and other areas 
of subpart K as appropriate.
    An individual commenter notes that since the flights are not 
considered commercial operations and are not held out to access by the 
public, requiring the PIC to have an airline transport license (ATP) 
and a first class medical certificate would cause undue hardship. Many 
of the owners of fractional aircraft are pilots in their own right, and 
would not be able to fly their own aircraft unless they held an ATP and 
first class medical.
    According to this commenter, requiring 1500 hours for a commercial 
license, an instrument rating, and a type rating (if the aircraft 
required a type rating) should be sufficient for this type of operation 
as it is much more restrictive than the current minimums for part 91 
non-commercial operation in large turbine powered multi-engine aircraft 
(currently a private pilot certificate with a type rating and an 
instrument rating for non-commercial operations). According to the 
commenter, although some relief is provided by the proposed regulation, 
it is up to the local FAA FSDO offices to issue the relief, which, in 
practice, would be time consuming and nationally non-uniform.
    Another individual commenter suggests changing the language in 
Sec.  91.1053(a)(2) from ``multi-engine turbine-powered'' to ``multi-
engine turbojet powered.'' The current wording would require operators 
of light twin turbine-engine aircraft such as Beech KingAirs and Cessna 
Conquests to use ATP pilots, which is much more restrictive than the 
current part 91 requirements. Light turboprop aircraft should be 
included under the requirements in paragraph (a)(3). This word change 
would make many requests for deviations unnecessary.
    FAA Response: While the flight time requirements for PIC's and 
SIC's in Sec.  91.1053(a)(1) are the same for all sizes of aircraft, 
paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) make a distinction between the 
certification and rating requirements for multi-engine turbine-powered 
fixed-wing and powered-lift aircraft and the certification and rating 
requirements for all other aircraft. In addition Sec.  91.1053(b) 
provides for deviations from paragraph (a), depending on the size and 
scope of the operation. Although these experience requirements are more 
restrictive than the current part 91 requirements, the FOARC endorsed 
this level of safety. The FAA believes that any person piloting a 
fractionally owned aircraft, whether they are a professional pilot 
employed by the management company or a fractional owner/pilot, must 
meet the requirements of Sec.  91.1053 unless the size and scope of the 
operation warrant a deviation. When a person becomes a fractional owner 
of an aircraft that is part of a large and complex program, he or she 
has a responsibility to the other fractional owners to assure the safe 
operation of that aircraft. This is in contrast to a person who owns 
and operates his or her own aircraft or perhaps shares the ownership 
with a few other people. As explained above under ``Owner-piloted 
Multiple-owner Aircraft,'' a fractional ownership program under subpart 
K is probably not the appropriate type of shared ownership for persons 
who wish to pilot their own aircraft.

Section 91.1055 Pilot Operating Limitations and Pairing Requirement

    EJA believes that, as used in Sec.  91.1055, the terms ``program 
flight'' and ``program flight time'' are ambiguous and not defined. The 
intent of the NRPM appears to require that the pilot in command and 
second in command have obtained the requisite 75 hours flying for the 
program manager that currently employs them, rather than for a previous 
program manager.
    EJA also believes the term ``type aircraft'' is confusing because 
of the use of the term in connection with airmen and aircraft 
certification. EJA suggests that the final rule should clarify that the 
pilot must have obtained the required flight time in the make and model 
of that aircraft assigned, and, if a type rating is required, in that 
type aircraft.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the required hours of flight time 
should be clarified. The term ``program flight time'' has been changed 
to ``flight time'' to clarify that the hours may be obtained in that 
make and model or type aircraft (in operations under part 91, 121, 125, 
or 135), and are not limited to program flights (i.e., flights where 
the fractional owner has designated the passengers or property on 
board) or flights for a particular program manager. Also, as suggested 
by EJA, the rule language has been changed to tie the number of hours 
to particular make and model aircraft or to a type aircraft, if a type 
rating is required for that aircraft.

Rest and Duty Issues: General

    NBAA, NATA and Flexjet fully support the proposed flight, duty and 
rest time requirements for all pilots operating fractional program 
aircraft. NBAA believes that this proposal provides a balanced approach 
for limiting pilot duty and flight times while providing maximum 
flexibility for aircraft and crew scheduling. NATA and Flexjet believe 
that these requirements should be issued by the FAA independent of any 
other requirements imposed by the FAA on other segments of the aviation 
community. They believe the resolution of those matters should not 
impact the regulation of fractionally-owned aircraft operated under 
part 91. They do not believe that the FAA should create a ``one size 
fits all'' flight, duty, and rest regulation to cover the diverse types 
of aircraft operations conducted under the regulations. NATA adds that 
because fractional ownership operations are private aircraft 
operations, it would not be appropriate to hold these operations to the 
same flight and duty-time regulations that commercial aviation 
operations are subject to. NATA also points out that the proposal has 
more restrictive rest requirements than part 121. Proposed subpart K 
requires 10 hours of rest with no reduction.
    The EJA Master Executive Council Chairman believes that collective 
bargaining agreements have provided some part 121 pilots with the most 
sensible duty and rest conditions in the entire industry. These 
agreements, combined with recommendations from leading researchers in 
the field could form the basis of a new comprehensive set of duty and 
rest guidelines for all pilots regardless of the type of equipment they 
fly or under which regulations they operate. This should be of the very 
highest priority for the FAA.
    The Teamsters and NWJ mention that the regulations as written do 
not address rest and duty issues from a crew member's perspective. One 
commenter notes that the current job responsibilities of a fractional 
crew are far different from any airline or corporate flight position, 
resulting in greater fatigue, pressures, and responsibilities. 
Fractional pilots are subject to multiple legs across different time 
zones, loading and unloading bags multiple times, and customer service 
issues, resulting in minimum (real) rest. Several time zone changes 
with very little consideration of their effect on the pilot combined 
with multiple days, bad weather, unknown airports, special airport 
procedures, and international flights further close the window of 
safety.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that there are many similarities 
between fractional ownership operations and

[[Page 54545]]

other categories of aviation, such as corporate and on-demand 
operations, but there are also some unique aspects of fractional 
ownership operations, such as crew and aircraft positioning and 
scheduling. Currently, fractional ownership operations have no 
regulatory flight, duty, and rest requirements. The requirements of 
this final rule will apply standards comparable to those applied to on-
demand operations, and go beyond those standards in specific areas, 
such as in applying time zone restrictions. While a company is free to 
establish collective bargaining agreements with its pilots, it is the 
inherent responsibility of the FAA to establish minimum standards that 
are appropriate to each type of operation. The FAA has made some 
changes to the proposed rule, as explained below. Also, the FAA intends 
to monitor the implementation of these rules and may do future 
rulemaking, particularly at the time that the agency develops proposed 
revisions to flight, duty, and rest requirements for part 121 and 135 
operations.
    Single Pilot. NATA and Flexjet believe the proposed regulation 
would be appropriate for single-pilot operations. In addition, the 
deviation authority of proposed Sec.  91.1049 allows the FAA to 
authorize single-pilot operations when the FAA determines that it would 
be appropriate given the circumstances. The Teamsters believe the 
proposed rules would not be appropriate for single pilot operations.
    FAA Response: The deviation authority in Sec.  91.1049 for single-
pilot operations is intended to allow operations with certain small 
aircraft certificated for one pilot. Part 135 has a similar provision 
for such aircraft. One of the elements in authorizing single-pilot 
operations will be to prevent pilot fatigue. Therefore, the rules in 
Sec.  91.1059 applicable to a single pilot impose a daily flight time 
limit of 8 hours instead of 10 hours, which may be extended only one 
hour instead of two hours, because of circumstance beyond the control 
of the operator, such as bad weather. In addition, the deviations may 
provide other conditions to help prevent pilot fatigue, such as the use 
of an autopilot or fatigue countermeasures.
    Flight Attendants. The EJA Master Executive Council Chair, NWJ, and 
Teamsters state that flight attendants should also be protected by duty 
and rest requirements. A flight attendant's primary duty is to provide 
cabin safety. Fatigue impairs their performance just as it does a 
pilot's. The Teamsters suggest using the part 135 flight attendant 
rules.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with these comments and has added duty 
and rest requirements for flight attendants to the final rule. These 
requirements are based on those applicable to part 135 operations in 
Sec.  135.273. However, a fractional ownership program manager has the 
option of following the pilot duty and rest requirements in subpart K, 
instead of the flight attendant requirements. Some operators prefer to 
schedule the entire crew under the same rules, instead of complying 
with different rules for the cockpit and cabin crews. In addition a 
fractional ownership program manager may use the flight attendant rules 
of part 121 or part 135, instead of those under subpart K, if 
authorized. This option may be most useful for program managers that 
conduct both part 91 and part 135 or 121 operations.
    Fractional ownership operations must comply with the rest and duty 
requirements whenever a flight attendant is used, not just in cases 
when the flight attendant is a required crewmember under Sec.  91.533 
for flights with 19 or more passengers. This is necessary because 
whenever a qualified crewmember is on board, he or she must be rested 
and able to perform the duties safely.
    Research. Four commenters (two individuals, Teamsters, and EJA 
Master Executive Council Chairman) are surprised that FOARC did not 
consider research done by NASA and others on the topic of rest and 
duty. One commenter thinks there is an opportunity to look outside the 
box to a serious solution to fatigued crews and the safety hazard that 
comes from this type of professional occupation.
    The Teamsters note that Sec.  91.1057 is filled with unenforceable 
language and in many cases goes against decades of studies conducted by 
NASA and others regarding duty time and rest requirements. At a time 
when more and more accidents are being blamed on fatigue and the FAA is 
finally enforcing various rest requirement regulations, FOARC proposes 
that the FAA ignore the research and its own definitions found 
throughout the FAA regulations.
    The EJA Master Executive Council Chairman thinks that if the FAA is 
serious about ``one level of safety,'' it should listen to the experts 
in the field and make consistent changes to all duty and rest 
regulations based on science, not politics. There should be no 
difference in duty and rest regulations whether one is flying under 
part 91, 135, or 121. The EJA Master Executive Council Chairman and 
Teamsters note that all humans are subject to fatigue, regardless of 
the type of aircraft being flown or for whom they are flying.
    IBT notes that substantial literature exists that suggests an 
average minimum of eight consecutive hours of sleep is required to 
ensure a rested state. Further, alertness is impaired by fatigue, 
especially at night and during multi-time zone crossings. Current 
thought suggests that to achieve eight hours of sleep, a crewmember 
needs at least ten (10) consecutive hours of rest opportunity. This 
provides a normal maximum duty period of 14 consecutive hours. Beyond 
that crews should be augmented. This commenter states that, 
historically, in air transport operations, eight hours has been the 
normal maximum flight time for a two-person crew and no rationale has 
been presented to change this maximum. Also 12 hours should be 
established as the maximum flight time for a three pilot crew. This too 
has been traditionally adhered to in air transport operations.
    FAA Response: The FAA did consider the research that has been 
conducted on fatigue in the aviation industry. Many of the principles 
recited by IBT have been incorporated into the subpart K flight, duty, 
and rest requirements. The subpart K requirements were based on those 
applicable to on-demand operations in part 135 with additional 
requirements based on unique aspects of fractional ownership 
operations. In addition, the research on fatigue countermeasures will 
be reviewed and incorporated into the guidance for fractional ownership 
operations, as appropriate.
    Similarity to Parts 121/135. A commenter believes that the flight 
and duty limits should be the same requirements as part 121 or 135. 
NWJ, Teamsters, and an individual recommend that the rest rules for 
fractional pilots should be the same as those for pilots operating 
under part 135. A commenter notes that a higher level of safety would 
be maintained. By voluntarily meeting these high standards, these 
current fractional programs have had an excellent safety record. 
However, this commenter has seen an erosion of this voluntary 
compliance to remain competitive. If the regulatory minimum were 14 CFR 
135/121, the high level of safety we enjoy today will be maintained.
    FAA Response: The FAA believes that the subpart K flight, duty, and 
rest requirements are comparable to part 121 and part 135 in the level 
of safety provided, and in addition, address some unique aspects of 
fractional ownership operations. In the final rule, the FAA has added a 
provision allowing

[[Page 54546]]

fractional ownership program managers to follow the applicable 
unscheduled part 121 or part 135 flight time limitations, duty period 
limitations, and rest requirements instead of the subpart K 
requirements. This would be particularly helpful for operators who 
conduct both subpart K and part 135 or part 121 operations because it 
would facilitate scheduling and recordkeeping for crewmembers who work 
under multiple types of operations. A fractional ownership program 
manager who wishes to follow part 135 or part 121 rules must obtain 
approval to do so and the approval must be included in the management 
specifications for that program manager.

Section 91.1057 Flight, Duty and Rest Time Requirements

Section 91.1057(a)--Definitions

    Augmented flight crew. According to EJA, this definition does not 
specify the qualifications for the third pilot. This commenter uses, 
and believes that the FAA intends to require that program managers use, 
a qualified PIC on the flight deck at all times. This requires that two 
pilots in command be aboard the aircraft, resulting in an augmented 
crew that is composed of, at a minimum, a designated/qualified pilot in 
command, a qualified pilot in command, and a designated/qualified SIC. 
IBT concurs with the proposed definition, but would require a first 
class-type reclining chair for the pilot at rest.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with these commenters. The FAA 
intended that the subpart K rule would treat augmented crews the same 
as in part 135. In the final rule, language from Sec.  135.269 has been 
included to specify the crew qualifications for a three- or four-pilot 
crew and to provide that the aircraft must have adequate sleeping 
facilities.
    Calendar day. Kaiser Air, Inc. believes the definition would be 
more clear using only Coordinated Universal Time and deleting ``or 
local time.''
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with this comment because the 
definition used in Sec.  91.1057 is consistent with the definition for 
``calendar day'' used in Sec.  135.273. The main point is that the day 
should include 24 hours of elapsed time, regardless of time zone 
changes.
    Extension of normal duty. IBT proposes that this definition be 
eliminated. The EJA Master Executive Council Chairman notes that this 
is an ambiguous definition, open to wide interpretation.
    A Flight Operations Manager notes the end of the definition says 
``within the planned flight time'' when it should say ``within the 
planned duty time.''
    EJA extends this thought, noting that this definition in the NPRM 
appears to refer not only to an extension of normal duty time, but also 
to an extension of flight time. The phrase as defined, and as used in 
the flight, duty, and rest tables, should be changed to ``extension of 
normal duty and flight time.'' This commenter also suggests that the 
regulation provide additional examples of situations that would justify 
the increased duty period.
    A flight operations manager notes that in published legal 
interpretations the FAA General Counsel consistently defines 
``circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder/program 
manager'' to include adverse weather, late passengers, mechanical 
delays, air traffic control delays, etc. These are all circumstances 
beyond the control of the operators or flight crews and should be 
included in the rule when implemented.
    The Teamsters state that the FAA has been slowly making changes 
that are demanded by NTSB and researched by dozens of agencies, yet 
allows a definition that goes against common sense and its own recent 
enforcement policy.
    EJA suggests ``period of duty'' (used in the definition of 
``extension of normal duty'') be changed to ``duty period'' (a defined 
term in the NPRM), to be consistent.
    FAA Response: In response to these comments the FAA has 
reconsidered what flexibility is appropriate when, because of 
circumstances beyond the control of the program manager, a flight 
arrives late. The FAA has determined that program managers should be 
allowed to extend the flight time for a 2-pilot crew by up to 2 hours 
in such circumstances, but that it is not appropriate to extend the 
duty period or reduce the rest periods. The flight time for a 1-pilot 
crew operating under a deviation could be extended by 1 hour. The FAA 
believes that this solution provides the most flexibility for daily 
scheduling, while ensuring that adequate rest is provided and that duty 
periods of more than 14 hours are prohibited. Therefore, in the final 
rule, the defined term has been changed to ``extension of flight time'' 
and ``period of duty'' has been changed to ``flight time.'' The chart 
in Sec.  91.1059 has been changed accordingly.
    Multi-time zone flight. Kaiser Air, Inc. notes that this section 
needs more clarification. Does ``crossing'' include the time zone at 
take-off and landing? How many time zones are ``crossed'' from 
California to New York--2, 3, or 4? What about flights that make fuel 
stops and are not ``continuous?''
    EJA mentions that ``continuous'' is undefined in this section. The 
commenter suggests including multi-time zone crossings in the same duty 
period, since it would be irrelevant whether a flight had been made 
non-stop, or with an intervening stop, where at the end of the duty 
day, the flight crew had crossed multiple time zones. This commenter 
recommends that the definition be changed to reflect this, with the 
suggested phrase, ``a flight or multiple flights in a single duty 
period, the end result of which involves' crossing five or more time 
zones in one direction.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with these commenters that the 
proposed definition was confusing. It has been redrafted to clarify 
that it is the time zone difference of 5 hours or more from the 
originating time zone that is of concern, because a time difference of 
that amount can affect a pilot's circadian rhythm. The FOARC 
recommended this additional provision. The FAA notes this provision is 
more restrictive than part 121 and 135 and will add complexity to the 
matrix of flight time and rest requirements. It should also be noted 
that most circadian rhythm issues involve not only the number of time 
zones crossed, but the time of day that the duty period begins.
    Planned expanded duty. EJA believes that this phrase appears to be 
used in the NPRM to refer not only to planned expanded duty, but also 
to an expansion of flight time. The phrase as defined, and as used in 
the flight, duty, and rest tables, should be changed to ``planned 
expanded duty and flight time.'' The phrase ``long-range aircraft 
capable of exceeding 10 hours of flight'' is found within ``planned 
expanded duty,'' which should be clarified to indicate long-range 
aircraft capable of exceeding 10 hours of non-stop flight flown in 
accordance with part 91. Since ``planned expanded duty'' is used not 
only in proposed Sec.  91.1059, dealing with unaugmented crews, but 
also in proposed Sec.  91.1061, dealing with augmented crews, the 
definition should not be limited by the phrase ``unless the flightcrew 
is augmented by a third pilot.'' That limitation is inherent in 
proposed Sec.  91.1059, and would conflict with proposed Sec.  91.1061.
    The EJA Master Executive Council Chairman notes that by allowing a 
``planned'' expansion of duty, the FAA is granting fractional program 
managers carte blanche approval to operate ultra-long range business 
jets to the limits of aircraft endurance without putting a third 
crewmember on board. Owing to

[[Page 54547]]

the costs involved, program managers will never make use of a third 
flight crewmember unless obligated by regulations to do so.
    IBT believes the proposed definition is incomplete. This commenter 
concurs with the proposal provided that this term requires an augmented 
crew. Also, insert ``cannot be scheduled'' between ``flight'' and 
``unless.''
    FAA Response: The FAA is reviewing the research on pilot fatigue 
and the use of ultra-long range aircraft and has determined that it is 
premature to establish a standard for the use of such aircraft with a 
crew of only 2 pilots. Therefore the definition of planned expanded 
duty and the limits for such duty in Sec. Sec.  91.1059 and 91.1061 do 
not appear in the final rule. Instead the FAA is applying limits for 
augmented crews in Sec.  91.1061 that are similar to those in Sec.  
135.269 for unscheduled 3- or 4-pilot crews. Currently the rest and 
duty requirements in parts 121 and 135 do not address the use of ultra-
long range aircraft. The FAA has decided to defer a decision on 
appropriate rest and duty requirements for the use of such aircraft by 
fractional ownership programs until standards for parts 121 and 135 are 
developed.
    Reserve and Standby. Kaiser Air, Inc. notes that ``reserve'' and 
``standby'' are defined but then do not appear elsewhere in the 
proposed rule language. EJA Master Executive Council Chairman and 
Teamsters ask how the definition of ``standby'' differs from 
``reserve'' and who arbitrates the assured conflicts between pilot and 
program manager? Another commenter notes that these two definitions are 
ambiguous. Both terms require the flight crew to be in a state of 
readiness to fly. However the reserve status, with an unlimited time 
associated with it, leaves excessive room for abuse and subjects crews 
to unreasonable periods where the pilot must be ready to fly. This time 
is not counted as a duty status.
    A commenter believes that time spent on standby should be 
considered duty time. It is impossible to ensure adequate rest while on 
extended periods of standby, sometimes reaching lengths of several 
days. Often after long periods of standby time, crews are called out at 
any hour of the night. This situation is dangerous.
    The EJA Master Executive Council Chairman believes that reserve is 
duty, stating that requiring a crewmember to ``hold himself or herself 
fit to fly,'' ``remain within a reasonable response time of the 
aircraft,'' and ``maintain a ready means whereby the flight crewmember 
may be contacted by the program manager'' is, by definition, duty. The 
commenter notes that FAA's own Chief Counsel's definition of duty 
reads, in part, ``having a present responsibility for work.'' The three 
conditions contained in the proposed definition certainly add up to a 
present responsibility for work.
    The Teamsters state that the reserve status definition is not 
adequate because it does not provide for a known, protected rest 
period. There is no way a pilot can be on a reserve schedule, never 
knowing when the call will come, and be free from fatigue at the end of 
a possible 16-hour duty period.
    A commenter notes that these proposed rules define ``reserve'' as 
not being part of duty. What this means to a pilot is that he/she could 
get up at 8 AM and be on reserve all day. At the end of that day the 
pilot could be called and required to show up for duty and begin a 14-
hour or longer duty day. In this example a pilot could be operating an 
aircraft with no sleep in 29 or more hours. The commenter believes that 
although a pilot can refuse a trip when he or she is too tired, the 
pilot's employer can also refuse to keep the pilot employed for turning 
down a ``legal'' trip. A commenter agrees that it is not enough to say 
it's the pilot's decision, when a pilot is under pressure from Chief 
Pilots and Directors of Flight Operations.
    Three individual commenters, including a flight operations manager, 
propose removing the definition of reserve status. Two of these 
commenters note that even if reserve status is not eliminated, the 
amount of time that one can spend on reserve status must be defined.
    The flight operations manager suggests removing ``Reserve'' from 
the proposed regulation for both 91.1057 and 135. As defined in the 
proposed rule ``Reserve'' meets the FAA definition of duty. If 
considered duty it defeats the intent of Reserve, and therefore should 
be removed. The FAA General Counsel's definitions of rest, duty and 
circumstances beyond the control of the operator are clear and concise 
and should continue to be part of this rulemaking.
    According to an EJA pilot, FOARC's definition of ``reserve status'' 
needs to be changed to be included in one's duty period. This proposed 
definition says reserve status is considered a part of the pilot's rest 
period. Yet, at the same time they define rest as being ``a period of 
time * * * that is free of all responsibility for work or duty prior to 
commencement of, or following completion of, a duty period, and during 
which the flight crew member cannot be required to receive contact from 
the program manager * * *.''
    NWJ believes that incorporating the elements of extended and 
scheduled reserve as outlined in the NATA 135 On-Demand Concept Paper 
on Flight & Duty Time, would be of value. These elements empower the 
crew to refuse trips if they have not received sufficient sleep to 
safely conduct the flights.
    IBT disagrees with the proposed definition and instead proposes 
that this term mean ``the assignment of a crewmember by the program 
manager to a standby status from which the crewmember may be assigned 
to flight duty. While in such status, the crewmember has a present or 
prospective responsibility for flight duty assignment.'' Reserve 
standby preceding a duty period should be included in the duty period 
on an hour for hour basis.
    FAA Response: As defined, the term ``standby'' refers to flight 
crewmembers who are on duty while awaiting an assignment for a flight. 
The requirements for standby pilots are the same as those for pilots 
with flight assignments. All rest and duty requirements apply to 
standby flight crewmembers and therefore adequate rest is ensured 
before the duty period begins and after the duty period is completed 
and the length of the duty period is limited. Reserve pilots, on the 
other hand, are not on assigned duty for a program manager. They are 
awaiting their next assignment from the program manager. The final rule 
clarifies that a reserve assignment is also not considered rest. 
Although the proposed definition evidently did not make this clear, the 
rest requirements apply to reserve pilots, as well as to pilots with 
regular flight assignments.
    Rest period. IBT concurs with the proposed definition but would 
place a period after ``manager'' and delete the rest of the sentence.
    A flight operations manager believes the proposed regulation as 
written is correct in that it provides that a pilot receives 
consecutive hours of rest rather than uninterrupted rest as mentioned 
in the preamble. It is very important not to define rest as an 
uninterrupted period so that 135 Air Carriers and Fractional Ownership 
Managers are able to at least contact flight crews while in rest to 
advise them of a future assignment.
    The Teamsters believe that a good model for a definition of rest is 
the definition in part 135's Flight Attendant Limitations section, 
which is very reasonable and conforms to both scientific research and 
common sense. The commenter thinks that FOARC presents a definition 
that almost conforms to the accepted FAA

[[Page 54548]]

definition, but then undermines that meaning with the definitions of 
reserve and standby.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the first commenter and has 
deleted the words ``for purposes of program operations'' from the 
definition. This change helps to clarify that the program manager may 
not contact the crewmember for any reason during the rest period, not 
even to advise them of a future assignment, as suggested by the second 
commenter. As explained under the discussion on reserve status, there 
is no conflict between the requirements for reserve and rest because a 
flight crewmember must be taken off reserve and given a rest period 
before reporting for an assignment involving flight time.

Section 91.1057(c)

    According to EJA, this proposed section did not define ``program 
duty.'' This commenter recommends the paragraph be amended by removing 
``program'' and inserting ``required by the program manager'' after 
``duty.''
    EJA thinks that the NPRM does not address the impact of program 
manager-assigned non-flying activities on the duty and rest provisions. 
While it is likely that FOARC and the FAA intended that this period of 
work may not be considered part of any rest period, the final rule 
should make this clear. Section 91.1057 should be amended by adding a 
new paragraph to read as follows: Sec.  91.1057(k) Assignments of duty 
made by the program manager that do not involve flight time will not be 
considered part of any required rest period.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with these commenters and has changed 
``program duty'' to ``duty'' to clarify that the program manager may 
not assign any kind of duty during a required rest period.

Section 91.1057(d)

    EJA believes that while this section adequately addresses the issue 
of a program manager deadheading a flight crewmember at the start of 
the duty period, it does not address the deadheading of a flight 
crewmember to his home base at the completion of the duty period. 
Because of the unpredictability of airline schedules, the program 
manager should be given the flexibility to use the post-duty period to 
deadhead flight crewmembers to their home base. Since the flight, duty, 
and rest provisions are safety-related provisions, and since the flight 
crewmember's duty has concluded and the flight crewmember will be given 
all appropriate rest before the initiation of his next duty period, 
there are no adverse safety consequences to excluding post-duty period 
deadheading to home base from these regulations.
    An EJA Pilot believes the proposed definition of ``local in 
character'' needs to be qualified, so flight crewmembers are not 
subject to unsafe extensions to either side of their duty periods when 
traveling to/from the airport. Current interpretations vary greatly 
among supervisors as to what is considered ``local,'' suggesting a 
definitive time line. Driving to the hotel from the airport or vice 
versa has varied from 5 to 45 minutes.
    FAA Response: Post-duty deadheading is included in Sec.  
91.1057(d). Program managers may deadhead flight crewmembers back to 
their home bases, but that time cannot be included as part of the rest 
period. Frequently pilots for fractional ownership programs are flown 
commercially to be in position for a flight assignment. Whether such a 
flight occurs before or after a duty period, it may not be counted as 
part of the rest period. The FAA is aware of the problem of ``local'' 
transportation to and from the airport to distant hotels and reminds 
program managers that they must allow time for crewmembers to obtain 
the required rest.

Section 91.1057(h)

    EJA thinks that the phrase ``extension of planned duty or flight 
time'' may be confusing when used in connection with planned expanded 
duty.
    FAA Response: Since the concept of planned expanded duty has been 
removed from the final rule, the words ``duty or'' have been removed 
from Sec.  91.1057(h).

Section 91.1059 Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements: One or 
Two Pilot Crews &

Section 91.1061 Augmented Flight Crews

    EJA states that some of the limitations in proposed Sec. Sec.  
91.1059 and 91.1061 should be amended to reflect the capabilities of 
newer, long-range business jets. For instance, while the proposed rule 
allows flight time up to 12 hours, the newer generation jets have a 
realistic range able to accommodate flight times in excess of 14 hours. 
To use safely the 14+ hours of potential flight time, the flight crew 
will conceivably require a 16-20 hour duty period. Similarly, to use 
safely the 16 hours of flight time, the flight crew will conceivably 
require up to a 20-hour duty period. To allow for this length of duty 
period, additional requirements must be satisfied. The minimum crew 
rest period before any planned duty period of 16 or more hours should 
be increased from 10 hours to 18 hours. The flight crew would be 
limited to three scheduled landings during the 16 or more hour duty 
period, limiting exposure to the high workload environment of takeoffs 
and landings. Further, the minimum post-duty rest would be increased 
from 10 hours to 18 hours for 14-16 hours of flight time and 24 hours 
for 16 or more hours of flight time. Creating these additional 
requirements ensures that the flight crew will be adequately rested 
before and after the flight.
    An EJA Pilot states that pilot fatigue has contributed to several 
aviation accidents, specifically American Airlines Flight 1420, which 
could have been avoided if the pilots had been more alert on the flight 
deck. The commenter believes the proposed flight, duty, and rest 
requirements are not safe and that we need to limit duty periods to 10 
hours for a normal duty day and to 12 hours for an extended duty day. 
Similarly, a commenter believes that 16 hours is too long. He has 
worked many 14-hour days and believes that this is the maximum safe 
workday limit.
    An individual commenter suggests rewriting Sec.  91.1059(c) by 
limiting duty time to 12-hour with an extension to 14; by augmenting 
crews if there is more than 8 hours of flight time; and that for duty 
between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m., there should be a maximum flight time of 8 
hours with 10 hours of duty.
    IBT proposes in lieu of FOARC's recommendations that there be no 
extension of the 14-hour duty day and no extension of the 8-hour flight 
time limit.
    A commenter makes the following suggestions. First, duty times 
should be a maximum of 12 hours extendable to 14 hours, instead of the 
proposed 14 hours extendable to 16 hours. Aircrews, currently operating 
under similar regulations, have stated that fatigue starts to set in 
insidiously after this period. Second, flight time should be a maximum 
of 10 hours or even reduced to 8 hours to meet FAA part 121 
limitations. Fractional operators are often involved in flying into and 
out of unfamiliar airports which requires a consistently high state of 
alertness and readiness. To require or set such high duty times (14 
hours or greater) and flight times (10 hours or greater) places an 
unrealistic burden on flight crews and may compromise safety.
    Kaiser Air, Inc. notes that the duty time limits in Sec.  91.1061 
appear to be a range of 14-16 hours and 16-18 hours rather than a 
limit. This needs

[[Page 54549]]

clarification since a limit would not have a range.
    EJA states that ``assign'', as used in Sec.  91.1059(c), should be 
changed to ``permit'' since it would not be possible to ``assign'' an 
extension of normal duty, which is, by definition, an unplanned event. 
For ease of use, the table should also be revised to include the one-
pilot requirements addressed in paragraph (b)(1). Also, the final rule 
should include information in Sec.  91.1061 on when and how an 
augmented rule would be used. Additionally, the table in proposed Sec.  
91.1061 should address an extension of normal duty, since this concept 
would apply to augmented crews, just as it applies to unaugmented crews 
(for example, in proposed Sec.  91.1059).
    The Teamsters suggest that Sec.  91.1061 contain additional 
language to specify which aircraft can be augmented, establish per 
pilot limitations, and require adequate rest facilities onboard the 
aircraft.
    IBT suggests that proposed Sec.  91.1061 be changed to provide a 
maximum actual duty time of 14 consecutive hours and a maximum actual 
flight time of 12 hours.
    FAA Response: As discussed above under ``planned expanded duty,'' 
the FAA has reviewed the research on pilot fatigue and the use of 
ultra-long range aircraft and has determined that it is premature to 
establish a standard for the use of such aircraft with a crew of only 2 
pilots. Therefore the definition of planned expanded duty and the 
limits for such duty in Sec. Sec.  91.1059 and 91.1061 do not appear in 
the final rule. Instead the FAA is applying limits for augmented crews 
in Sec.  91.1061 that are similar to those in Sec.  135.269 for 
unscheduled 3- or 4-pilot crews.
    In addition the tables have been changed in other ways in response 
to the comments and to make the tables consistent with the other 
requirements. Also, additional language has been added to Sec.  91.1061 
to specify the requirements for augmented crews. These are based on the 
comparable requirements in Sec.  135.269 for unscheduled 3- and 4-pilot 
crews.
    The FAA believes that the flight, duty, and rest requirements in 
the final rule are comparable to the variations suggested by several of 
the commenters. Following the issuance of the final rule, the FAA will 
closely monitor the implementation of the flight, rest, and duty rules 
by fractional ownership program managers, will continue to review the 
scientific literature on fatigue in aviation operations, and will 
revisit the appropriateness of these rules at the time that the FAA 
considers revisions to flight, rest, and duty rules for part 121 and 
part 135 operations.

Section 91.1063 Testing and Training

    EJA comments that proposed Sec.  91.1063(d)(8), which defines 
``requalification training'' to include training required because of a 
lapse in recurrent pilot testing requirements and instrument 
proficiency requirements, should also include a lapse in recurrent 
pilot training requirements or competency check requirements.
    The Teamsters state that proposed Sec. Sec.  91.1063 through 
91.1115 would not be needed if the FAA simply regulated fractional 
operators under part 135, where most of these sections are copied from.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with EJA and has changed Sec.  
91.1063(d)(8) in the final rule to specify that requalification 
training is necessary for crewmembers who have become unqualified by 
failing to comply with recurrent training, proficiency checks, or tests 
for pilots and with flight attendant testing requirements, if 
applicable, within the appropriate time period.
    Although it is true that the proposed training and testing 
requirements for fractional ownership programs are modeled on those for 
on-demand operators in part 135, it is important for them to appear in 
part 91, subpart K, where they can be tailored to be appropriate for 
fractional ownership programs. As discussed above under ``General 
Opposition,'' the FAA has determined that subpart K is the appropriate 
regulatory approach for this segment of aviation.

Sections 91.1065, 91.1067, 91.1069, 135.293 and 135.297 Initial and 
Recurrent Pilot and Flight Attendant Testing Requirements and 
Instrument Proficiency Check Requirements

    NATA and Flexjet strongly support the NPRM's provisions permitting 
the required flight training portion of any of the pilot training or 
check requirements of this subpart, including the initial, transition, 
upgrade, requalification, differences, or recurrent training, or the 
accomplishment of a competency check or instrument proficiency check, 
to be conducted in a simulator.
    EJA states that proposed Sec. Sec.  91.1065(a) and 91.1069(d) 
should be clarified to ensure that it is understood that a written 
test, an oral test, or a combination of both types of test will satisfy 
the requirements. EJA also recommends that proposed Sec. Sec.  
91.1065(b) and 91.1069(e) make clear that (1) not all of the maneuvers 
and procedures required for the original issuance of the particular 
pilot certificate are required to be included on the competency check, 
(2) not all of the procedures required for an air transport pilot 
certificate must be included on the instrument proficiency check for a 
pilot in command of an aircraft, and (3) not all of the procedures 
required for a commercial pilot certificate must be included on the 
instrument proficiency check for a pilot in command of a rotorcraft or 
a second in command of an aircraft. In keeping with FAA Policy 
Memorandum 183, not all maneuvers required for the original 
issuance need to be accomplished during an instrument proficiency 
check.
    PASS believes that the flight crew instrument proficiency check 
requirements in proposed Sec.  91.1069 should be the same as those 
specified for part 121 or 135 operations.
    A pilot comments that a basic premise of this NPRM is the adoption 
of industry best practices and equivalent levels of safety. Currently, 
part 121 air carriers and part 91 operators, but not part 135 
operators, may conduct progressive checking. That is, a maneuver 
successfully accomplished during training need not be repeated during a 
separate checking event. This commenter states that it is unclear 
whether subpart K makes provision for progressive checks or not. This 
commenter believes that allowing progressive checking for part 135 and 
subpart K would embrace industry best practices (part 91), enhance 
pilot training and safety, and provide appropriate equivalent standards 
between parts 121 and 135.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the EJA comment on Sec. Sec.  
91.1065(a) and 91.1069(d) and has changed the final rule language in 
both sections to make it clear that the required tests can be either 
written or oral, or a combination of written or oral.
    In response to PASS's comment on instrument proficiency check 
requirements, the proposed and final rule language does impose the same 
instrument proficiency check requirements as for parts 121 and 135, 
except that the requirements for SIC's are more restrictive under 
subpart K than for SIC's under part 135. An editorial change is being 
made to the rule language to clarify that the requirements apply to a 
pilot in command of an aircraft that requires the PIC to hold an ATP 
and to a second in command of an aircraft that requires the SIC to hold 
a commercial pilot certificate.
    The kind of progressive checking referred to by one commenter is

[[Page 54550]]

presumably the kind of checking allowed in an Advanced Qualification 
program under SFAR No. 58 for certificate holders operating under parts 
121 and 135. This kind of program is not available to persons operating 
under part 91 and this issue was not focused on by the FOARC or by the 
FAA before the NPRM was issued. Therefore, the FAA believes it is 
beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Section 91.1071 Crewmember Tests and Checks, Grace Provisions and 
Training to Accepted Standards

    PASS believes that additional language should be added to proposed 
Sec.  91.1071 that states that if an airman fails a check and is 
currently an employee of another certificate holder (that is, parts 
121, 125, 135), he or she must notify that company and not be allowed 
to function in a commercial capacity as an airman, until the check 
failed is subsequently passed.
    FAA Response: The final rule has been changed to add the 
notification requirement; however, the FAA cannot address 
qualifications as an airman under parts 121 or 135 in this rulemaking.

Section 91.1073 Training Program: General

    EJA states that proposed Sec.  91.1073 should be clarified so that 
the grace period applies to all tests, flight checks, and proficiency 
checks, and not just to recurrent training.
    FAA Response: The grace period that applies to tests, flight 
checks, and proficiency checks appears in Sec.  91.1071(a).

Section 91.1075 Training Program: Special Rules

    Alpha Flying states that proposed Sec.  91.1075(b) could lead to an 
interpretation that only a part 142 certificated training center could 
be used as a contractor for training. The Pilatus PC-12 is one aircraft 
for which there is no part 142 training center. Alpha believes that it 
was not the intent of the FOARC to prohibit the program manager from 
conducting training (under subparagraph (a)), using the services of a 
professional training center for portions of the training, if approved 
by the FAA inspector with jurisdiction over the management 
specifications. It would be in the interest of air safety to have a 
recognized professional program fulfill the requirements of Sec.  
91.1075 even if not part 142 certificated, if equivalent training 
effectiveness could be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the FSDO.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with this commenter and has changed 
the final rule to add a deviation clause that allows for the use of a 
training center that is not certificated under part 142 if approved by 
the Administrator. The FAA has made other changes in the final rule to 
clarify that a program manager may also use the services of another 
program manager or of a part 119 certificate holder.

Section 91.1087 Approval of Aircraft Simulators and Other Training 
Devices

    Flexjet notes that, if a program manager or its affiliate also 
conducts parts 121 or 135 operations and has an approved training 
manual with approvals for aircraft simulators or other training 
devices, those same approvals should be carried over to meet the part 
91 subpart K requirements.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with this comment. The changes to 
Sec.  91.1075 in the final rule will allow for this.

Sections 91.1089, 91.1091, 91.1093, 91.1095 Qualifications and Initial 
and Transition Training and Checking: Check Pilots and Flight 
Instructors

    EJA believes that proposed Sec. Sec.  91.1089 and 91.1091 should 
have a provision similar to that in Sec.  91.1063 that would allow a 
check pilot or flight instructor used by a program manager who is also 
a certificate holder under part 121 or 135 to be used under subpart K 
without additional training or testing. Flexjet makes a similar 
comment.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that a check pilot or flight 
instructor used by a program manager who is also a certificate holder 
under part 121 or 135 may be used in subpart K operations. The language 
of Sec.  91.1063 is broad enough to cover these sections as well. 
However, the FAA would want to ensure that the training and testing 
program elements are the same for both the fractional program and the 
part 121 or 135 operation. Where there are differences in the training 
and testing provisions of these programs, the check pilot or flight 
instructor must be trained and tested with respect to those 
differences.

Section 91.1101 Pilots: Initial, Transition, and Upgrade Ground 
Training

    EJA states that proposed Sec.  91.1101 was adopted from current 
Sec.  135.345, but that Sec.  91.1101 does not include the requirement 
that initial, transition, and upgrade ground training must include 
training on ``the approved Aircraft Flight Manual or equivalent.'' EJA 
believes this phrase should be added to Sec.  91.1101.
    FAA Response: The commenter is correct. The phrase has been added 
to Sec.  91.1101(b)(11) in the final rule.

Section 91.1109 Aircraft Maintenance: Inspection Program

    PASS believes that a new section should be added to delineate the 
responsibility for the airworthiness of the aircraft, specifying that 
the responsibility for the airworthiness of the aircraft should be 
shared by each fractional owner and the program manager. Also, this 
commenter believes that no program manager should use any person to 
perform required inspections or maintenance unless the person 
performing the inspection or maintenance is appropriately certificated, 
trained, qualified, and authorized to do so.
    EJA and an individual commenter believe that as written, proposed 
Sec.  91.1109 could be interpreted to require the development of a 
completely new inspection program. They believe that the final rule 
should clarify that the intent is to allow program managers to develop 
their inspection programs from portions of existing manufacturers' or 
certificate holders' inspection programs, or to use a manufacturer's or 
certificate holder's program in total. Similarly, it should make clear 
that compliance with current Sec.  91.409 is also acceptable, as well 
as that currently used forms would still be acceptable.
    Thus, this commenter states that when the program manager derives 
the inspection program from the manufacturer or certificate holder, it 
would then become the program manager's inspection program and require 
approval from the FAA for both the program and the use of the program. 
However, if the program manager elected to use the manufacturer's or 
certificate holder's inspection program in total, the program manager 
would request approval from the FAA to use the inspection program, but 
the inspection program itself would remain controlled by the 
manufacturer or certificate holder. To clarify this intent, ``derived'' 
should be replaced with ``derived or adopted.'' For clarity, ``area in 
which the aircraft is based'' should be replaced with ``program 
manager.'' Program managers will manage the aircraft inspection 
programs.
    NATA and Flexjet state that it was the FOARC's intent to allow the 
use of continuous airworthiness maintenance programs and continuous 
airworthiness inspection programs under proposed subpart K. To make 
this clear they recommend a total rewrite of proposed Sec.  91.1109 and 
also amendment of

[[Page 54551]]

numerous related sections throughout 14 CFR.
    According to EJA, proposed Sec.  91.1109 requires the ``operator or 
program manager'' to establish an aircraft inspection program. Since 
the NPRM requires the owner and program manager be jointly responsible 
for the airworthiness of program aircraft, this commenter recommends 
that Sec.  91.1109 refer to the ``owner or program manager.''
    FAA Response: A new section specifying the responsibility for 
airworthiness, as suggested by PASS, is not necessary because this 
topic is covered by Sec.  91.1011, which addresses the shared 
responsibilities of the owner and the program manager for compliance 
with all applicable requirements of this chapter, ``including those 
related to airworthiness.'' Likewise, it is not necessary to require in 
subpart K that persons performing required inspections or maintenance 
be appropriately certificated and qualified, because that topic is 
covered by part 43.
    The commenters' concern that Sec.  91.1109 could require the 
development of a completely new inspection program is incorrect, 
because paragraph (b) clearly states that the program must be derived 
from an existing program, which may be the program recommended by the 
aircraft manufacturer. The word ``derived'' is more appropriate than 
``derived or adopted'' because the manufacturer's program alone may not 
be adequate for a particular operation. Also, the program must include 
any maintenance instructions in STC's for any modifications that were 
made to the aircraft. For these reasons, the program manager needs to 
present the aircraft inspection program to the FAA for review and 
approval.
    In response to the comment about the use of continuous 
airworthiness maintenance programs (CAMP), the commenters are correct 
that the proposed rule language did not fully authorize the use of a 
CAMP to the inspection program within a CAMP. Although Sec.  91.1109, 
as proposed, would allow ``An inspection program that is part of a 
continuous airworthiness maintenance program currently in use by a 
person holding an air carrier or operating certificate issued under 
part 119 of this chapter and operating that make and model aircraft 
under part 121 or 135 of this chapter'' the FAA agrees that this option 
should be expanded in the final rule. The final rule has been 
rewritten, new Sec. Sec.  91.1411-91.1443 have been added (based on 
subpart J of part 135), and editorial and applicability changes to 
other sections, including Sec.  91.401, have been made to allow the use 
of a complete CAMP in a fractional ownership program. Fractional 
ownership program managers who elect to provide maintenance under a 
CAMP must meet maintenance requirements that are equivalent to those 
that part 121 and 135 operations that have a CAMP must meet. These 
include reporting requirements, mechanical interruption summary 
reports, service difficulty reports, employment of a Director of 
Maintenance and Chief Inspector, required inspection personnel, 
continuing analysis and surveillance program, maintenance recordkeeping 
requirements, and the use of airworthiness releases. With the use of a 
CAMP, the program manager will realize many of the same benefits that 
current part 121 and 135 operators have, such as continuing 
authorization to issue special flight permits as per Sec.  21.197 and 
the use of reliability programs.
    As noted by a commenter, the reference to the ``operator or program 
manager'' is incorrect. Although the owner is ultimately responsible 
for safe operations, the final rule refers only to the program manager, 
because it is the program manager who is delegated responsibility under 
Sec. Sec.  91.1023 and 91.1025 for the program operating manual, which 
contains the approved aircraft inspection program. Also the phrase 
``area in which the aircraft is based'' has been changed to clarify 
that the inspection program is approved by the FSDO that issued the 
management specifications.

Section 91.1111 Maintenance Training

    EJA states that proposed Sec.  91.1111 uses the same terminology as 
the equivalent provisions for crewmember training, which could lead to 
confusion due to the defined terms used for crewmember training, and 
the differing training requirements used for maintenance personnel. EJA 
states that using slightly different terminology will help ensure that 
the requirements are not confused. Specifically, EJA proposes that such 
personnel be required to ``undergo appropriate training prior to 
exercising those responsibilities'' instead of being required to 
``undergo appropriate initial and annual recurrent training.'' EJA also 
recommends adding, ``The program manager shall ensure that these 
personnel undergo annual refresher training, as applicable.''
    Similarly, NWJ and an individual comment that the requirement for 
maintenance personnel to ``undergo appropriate initial and annual 
recurrent training * * *'' may be too broad a statement. If the 
intention is that several types of training may be ``appropriate'' 
(that is OJT, formal, classroom, etc.) then that should be specified. 
If the intention is that maintenance personnel attend formal 
maintenance training annually, such as Flight Safety, then a twelve-
month frequency may be excessive. A more appropriate frequency would be 
twenty-four months.
    PASS believes that maintenance personnel should be certificated and 
qualified in accordance with part 65. Maintenance training should be 
documented in a training file for each employee of the program 
management company and available to the Administrator for inspection.
    FAA Response: The commenters' concerns about this section are 
unwarranted. The initial and recurrent training would be specific to 
the aircraft type and appropriate in content and length for the 
responsibilities of the maintenance personnel being trained. This 
training can be conducted using a variety of methods, including 
classroom training, on-the-job training, individual instruction, etc. 
Certification and qualification under part 65 would be a prerequisite 
to performing maintenance responsibilities. The FAA is developing 
guidance on training for maintenance personnel that will specify what 
training programs would be considered adequate and will recommend 
recordkeeping standards to help inspectors evaluate the adequacy of the 
training programs on an ongoing basis.

Section 91.1115 Minimum Equipment Lists and Letters of Authorization

    PASS believes that a statement needs to be added to this section 
that the Administrator will approve or deny any Minimum Equipment 
Lists, Letters of Authorization, Dispatch Deviation Guides, Deferred 
Discrepancy Lists or any other approvals covering the program aircraft.
    EJA states that the proposed rule does not address the use of a 
minimum equipment list or configuration deviation list as envisioned by 
the FOARC. The preamble states that ``The FOARC recommended that 
approvals for fractional ownership operations (such as MEL's, RVSM 
(reduced vertical separation minimum airspace), manual reviews and 
maintenance programs) be conducted through a process similar to part 
135 and/or part 121 processes and procedures, as appropriate''. EJA 
states that a new section should be added to mirror Sec.  135.179 and a 
conforming amendment should be made to Sec.  91.213. Additionally, 
program managers who also hold a part 121 or 135 certificate should be 
permitted to use the MEL's/

[[Page 54552]]

CDL's approved for those operations, as applicable.
    FAA Response: The FOARC recommended and the FAA agrees that a 
process similar to that used for part 121 and 135 operators should be 
used to approve operations documents, authorizations, and approvals. 
Specific sections in subpart K refer to those items that must be 
approved or accepted by the FAA. The actual approval will be given to 
the program manager on behalf of the fractional owners. The specific 
approval processes and procedures will be in guidance documents that 
will be completed on the effective date of this rule. The guidance will 
reflect a level of oversight and approval that is equivalent to that 
provided to part 121 and 135 operations.
    The FAA also agrees that proposed Sec.  91.1115 does not adequately 
describe the procedures and approvals needed for operating an aircraft 
with inoperable instruments or equipment. As suggested, the final rule 
replaces the proposed language with a new section modeled on Sec.  
135.179. The proposed language stating that all approvals, including 
MEL's, are issued to the program manager and are not affected by 
changes in ownership has been included in Sec.  91.1011(b). The new 
section also specifies that aircraft covered by an MEL for part 121 or 
part 135 operations must not have a separately approved MEL under 
subpart K, because the FAA issues only one MEL for each aircraft. If 
the aircraft is used under part 121 or 135, the MEL would be issued 
under that part.
    The FAA agrees with the suggestion by EJA that Sec.  91.213(c) 
should refer to part 91, subpart K, and has made this change in the 
final rule.

Part 91, Appendix G Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Airspace

    EJA states that, since Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum 
(``RVSM'') standards may be used by fractionally-owned aircraft, 
Appendix G to part 91 should reflect the existence of part 91, subpart 
K.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the EJA and has amended appendix 
G in the final rule to include references to subpart K in sections 3(a) 
and (3)(b) and in the introductory paragraph to section 7.

Part 135

Applicability

    EJA states that the reference to Sec. Sec.  91.1053 and 91.1055 in 
proposed Sec.  135.1(b) may create confusion that will require 
interpretation by the Administrator and/or the certificate holder to 
determine applicability. There is a high likelihood that those 
interpretations might be different. A simpler and clearer solution 
would be to revise Sec.  135.99 to include the applicable requirements 
of Sec. Sec.  91.1053 and 91.1055 using the terminology of part 135.
    NATA believes that it was the intention of the FOARC to require 
eligible on-demand operators to have two-pilot crews when exercising 
the privileges of an eligible on-demand operator. While the proposed 
regulations require compliance with the more stringent pilot experience 
and crew pairing requirements, a two-pilot crew is not specifically 
required. Proposed Sec.  91.1049 (d) requires two-pilot crews in 
fractional program operations. Therefore, to fulfill the intent and 
spirit of the FOARC, NATA recommends amending proposed Sec.  135.1 to 
specifically include a reference to the flight crew complement 
requirements of Sec.  91.1049.
    NATA also notes that the FAA's ability to grant deviations from 
certain requirements where appropriate based on the size and complexity 
of the operation or other relevant factors was critical to the FOARC 
deliberations. This commenter believes that it was FOARC's intent to 
provide access to these same deviations for part 135 operators to the 
extent that they are present in proposed Sec. Sec.  91.1049(d), 91.1053 
and 91.1055.
    Kaiser Air, Inc. states that for clarification the language in 
Sec.  135.1(b) should emphasize an eligible crew rather than eligible 
operator. An eligible operator may have several crews that may or may 
not be eligible themselves. Furthermore, Kaiser states that Sec.  
91.1055(c) should not be applicable to ``Eligible On-Demand 
Operators.'' Kaiser states that it is not a part 135 requirement now 
and is onerous to be added to the eligibility requirements. Kaiser 
questions how this rule would be interpreted and asks for clarification 
on whether paragraph (c) applies to SIC's, who do not require a type 
rating.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the proposed change to Sec.  
135.1 did not clearly spell out the requirements that apply to eligible 
on-demand operators. In the final rule, these requirements have been 
moved to a new Sec.  135.4 that describes, rather than cross-
referencing, the attributes of eligible on-demand operations, including 
the requirement for a two-pilot crew. Section 135.4 incorporates the 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  91.1049(d), 91.1053, and 91.1055, including 
the provision for deviations, that part 135 operators must comply with 
in order to be eligible to conduct operations using the same standards 
for the instrument approach procedures that fractional ownership 
programs will follow.

Section 135.247 Pilot Qualifications: Recent Experience

    Kaiser Air, Inc. supports the proposed changes to Sec.  135.247, 
but is concerned that the words ``each airplane'' and ``that airplane'' 
will be misinterpreted as meaning the specific serial numbered 
aircraft, rather than by category, class, and type. Similarly, the rule 
should state whether ``* * * more than one crewmember'' is required by 
type design or by operating rule.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with these comments and has changed 
the final rule to clarify that the requirements of paragraph (a)(3) 
apply to airplanes that are type certificated for more than one pilot 
crewmember and to pilots qualifying in each airplane type.

Section 135.299 Pilot in Command: Line Checks

    NATA strongly endorses an amendment to Sec.  135.299 that would 
establish an alternate means of compliance with the regulation by 
permitting certificate holders to utilize simulation technologies. 
Sec.  135.299(a) requires each pilot to pass a flight check annually. 
NATA believes that a well run line check program can provide detection 
of deficiencies and adverse trends and establish the need for a 
revision of old procedures or an initiation of new procedures by the 
certificate holder. Further, NATA believes that current simulation 
technology can provide a checking environment that would afford a level 
of safety equal to that currently provided by Sec.  135.299.
    The majority of the Sec.  135.299 line checks conducted in on-
demand air carrier operations are on flights that are dispatched for 
the sole purpose of accomplishing that check. Unlike scheduled air 
carrier operations conducted under part 121, where these checks are 
conducted during revenue operations, the on-demand operator must bear 
the total cost of the check. This puts the on-demand carrier at an 
economic disadvantage. Additionally, there is no line check requirement 
for any aircraft operated under part 91.
    NATA believes that crews professionally trained in the 
operationally realistic environment of advanced simulation, and 
comprehensively checked in ways not possible in the airplane, are 
better disciplined and better prepared to meet the challenges of flight 
than those trained in airplanes.

[[Page 54553]]

    Similarly, a pilot comments on the expense of the line check, which 
he believes does not effectively check competency. He proposes that it 
either be abolished or that the focus of the check is shifted away from 
basic airmanship to quantifiable human factors issues with the 
opportunity to provide a somewhat non-threatening environment where the 
pilot being checked has the chance to enhance his understanding of, and 
proficiency with, company standard operating procedures, human factors 
skills, etc.
    FAA Response: While there is some merit to the arguments presented 
on the line check requirements under part 135, this issue was not 
addressed in the NPRM process and therefore is beyond the scope of the 
proposed changes and cannot be resolved in the final rule.

Miscellaneous

    EJA states that throughout part 61, individual pilots are allowed 
to satisfy basic training, checking, proficiency check, and other 
similar requirements by satisfying requirements completed under air 
carrier training programs. EJA recommends that these sections should be 
amended to give comparable credit for satisfying parallel requirements 
under part 91, subpart K. The sections that EJA cites are Sec. Sec.  
61.55(d), 61.57, 61.58, 61.63, 61.157, and 61.159.
    Similarly, EJA recommends that Sec. Sec.  91.189 and 91.191 should 
be amended so that category II and III operations will be approved 
through Management Specifications and training and manual requirements 
will be met through part 91, subpart K.
    This commenter also points out that if another rulemaking becomes 
final, first it will be necessary to include references to the 
``Decision Altitude'' in proposed Sec. Sec.  91.1039(c) and 
91.1101(a)(7).
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with these comments because the 
training, testing, manuals, and approval processes in subpart K of part 
91 are equivalent to those in parts 121 and 135. The FAA has made 
changes to the final rule to insert references in part 61 (except for 
Sec.  61.57) to give credit for training and checking requirements 
accomplished under part 91, subpart K, and in Sec. Sec.  91.189 and 
91.191 to allow for approval of category II and III operations through 
part 91, subpart K, Management Specifications. Also the term ``Decision 
Altitude'' has been substituted for ``decision height'' wherever it 
appears. The FAA did not change Sec.  61.57 because subpart K does not 
contain recent experience requirements and therefore, subpart K pilots 
must follow the Sec.  61.57 requirements.

Beyond the Scope

    An individual commenter recommends that the complete text of 
Sec. Sec.  135.89, 135.93, and 135.100 should be included within new 
subpart K.
    NATA recommends that a new section be added (Sec.  91.1043 Aircraft 
requirements) to allow the use of aircraft registered in other 
countries but are legally permitted to operate in this country in 
fractional owner programs. This commenter proposes language that would 
require the aircraft to be registered in a country that is a party to 
the convention on International Civil Aviation and to meet other 
requirements.
    Eclipse Aviation notes that scheduled operations under part 135 
require, pursuant to part 119, part 25 certificated aircraft for turbo-
fan operations. This is in contrast to the fact that piston propeller 
and turboprop aircraft, that are not certified under part 25, may be 
utilized in scheduled part 135 operations. Certainly, when part 119 and 
its related safety concerns were formulated, aircraft such as the 
Eclipse 500 did not exist. Clearly, this commenter believes, the 
equipment and performance safety considerations that influenced the 
part 25 requirement for turbo-fan aircraft utilization in scheduled 
part 135 operations have merit. However, the level of safety that is 
available from a turbo-fan aircraft, featuring state-of-the-art digital 
avionics, offers an order of magnitude improvement in safety over most, 
if not all, of the piston propeller and turboprop aircraft that may 
currently be utilized in scheduled part 135 operations. Eclipse 
requests that part 119 requirements concerning scheduled part 135 
operations be evaluated in light of the new generation of personal 
turbo-fan aircraft that will appear on the aviation market over the 
next few years.
    FAA Response: All of the issues above merit consideration, but they 
were not addressed in the NPRM, and therefore are beyond the scope of 
issues that can be addressed in the final rule without additional 
notice and comment.
    Fractional owner program managers are encouraged to follow the 
standards in Sec. Sec.  135.89, 135.93, and 135.100 for the use of 
oxygen and autopilots and for crewmember duties, especially if the 
program manager also conducts operations under part 135. However, it 
needs to be clearly specified in the manual and training program which 
regulations and procedures are being followed.
    NATA's proposal to allow foreign registered aircraft to be operated 
in fractional owner programs has implications relating to citizenship 
and registration requirements that would require further study and 
future rulemaking, if warranted.
    The FAA agrees that the introduction of the Eclipse 500 will 
require the agency to reevaluate which operating requirements would be 
most appropriate for that airplane. At that time FAA will determine 
whether rulemaking is necessary.

Minor Conforming Changes

    The FAA finds it necessary to make minor changes by adding two rule 
sections not presented in the NPRM: Sections 21.197 (ferry flights) and 
91.401 (applicability). In the case of 21.197, the change gives program 
managers the same authority, to conduct ferry flights for the purpose 
of maintenance, as is currently held by part 121 and 135 operators who 
operate under continuous airworthiness maintenance programs. The change 
to section 91.401 will add part 91, subpart K management specifications 
holders to those who operate under a continuous airworthiness 
maintenance program and thus do not have to comply with certain 
maintenance sections of part 91.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The amendment to 14 CFR part 91 contains information collection 
requirements. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the information collection requirements 
associated with this rule were submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for review.
    According to the regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not conduct or 
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
The OMB control number for this information collection will be 
published in the Federal Register after it is approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Overview

    Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several 
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each 
Federal agency propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its 
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies 
to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. 
Third, the Trade

[[Page 54554]]

Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from setting 
standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements 
Act also requires agencies to consider international standards and, 
where appropriate, use them as the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a 
written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of 
proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result 
in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually 
(adjusted for inflation).
    In conducting these analyses, the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) has determined that the proposed rule (1) has benefits that do 
justify its costs, is not ``a significant regulatory action'' as 
defined in the Executive Order, and is ``significant'' as defined in 
the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; 
(2) will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities; (3) will not constitute a barrier to international trade; and 
(4) does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal 
governments, or on the private sector. These analyses are available in 
the docket and are summarized below.

Background

    In October 1999, the FAA convened the Fractional Ownership Aviation 
Rulemaking Committee (FOARC) to address the issues surrounding the 
regulation of fractional aircraft ownership program operations. On 
February 23, 2000, after extensive discussions, and a review of all 
comments received from the public and operators, the FOARC presented 
rulemaking recommendations to the FAA. These recommendations formed the 
basis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Regulation 
of Fractional Aircraft Ownership Programs'' (66 FR 37520, July 18, 
2001). Comments were to be received by October 16, 2001 but in response 
to several requests, the comment period was extended to November 16, 
2001.
    Since the inception of the fractional aircraft ownership program 
concept in 1986 the number of fractional aircraft ownership program 
aircraft has increased substantially. As of early 2000, the leading 
fractional aircraft ownership programs managed approximately 465 
aircraft on behalf of 3,446 shareholders and at the end of 2001 there 
were more than 3,500 shareholders with almost 5,000 shares of more than 
650 aircraft. Growth in fractional aircraft ownership programs is 
expected to continue.
    The final rule is expected to impose a total estimated cost of 
approximately $133.2 million ($85.8 million, discounted) on fractional 
operations, eligible on-demand air charter operators, and the FAA over 
the 15-year period from 2003 to 2017. Fractional aircraft ownership 
operations are expected to incur approximately $47.4 million ($35.2 
million, discounted), of these total costs complying with the 
regulatory requirements. Eligible on-demand part 135 air charter 
operators would incur compliance costs of approximately $83 million 
($48.3 million, discounted) of these total costs. The FAA is expected 
to incur estimated costs of approximately $3.1 million ($2.3 million, 
discounted), administering the rule.

Comments

    Some 231 entries (including some duplicates) were received in 
response to the NPRM. Three organizations endorsed the FAA's initial 
regulatory evaluation and one individual expressed concern about the 
possible economic impact of adopting subpart K. No commenters directly 
addressed specific proposed costs or revenue opportunities contained in 
the preliminary regulatory evaluation. The National Air Transportation 
Association (NATA) stated ``that the FAA's regulatory and economic 
evaluations are accurate and valid''. It continued: ``NATA, as the 
representative of many of the entities that will be directly regulated 
by the proposed regulation, agrees with the FAA's conclusion that the 
benefits of the proposed regulation justify its costs, that the 
regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number 
of small entities, and that the regulation will not create a barrier to 
international trade''. Bombardier Business Jet Solution (Flexjet) 
stated; ``Flexjet supports the FAA regulatory and economic validity in 
the NPRM'' and also included NATA's additional comments supporting the 
FAA's regulatory flexibility determination and trade impact assessment. 
Executive Jet Aviation (EJA) stated, that as a member of NATA's 
Fractional Aircraft Business Council, it ``strongly supports all of the 
general and specific comments on this NPRM ``provided by NATA. An 
anonymous commenter stated his or her belief ``that the proposed 
subpart K could have an unintended, detrimental economic effect on the 
business aviation industry without an appreciable increase in safety.'' 
The commenter continued ``that the existing part 91 rules, along with 
the arms-length contracts between informed fractional owners and 
program managers, allow market forces to create the most efficient and 
appropriate safety-to-cost ratio.'' While the commenter addressed 
various sections of the proposed rule, he/she did not challenge 
specific proposed cost estimates. In view of the lack of any specific 
cost data submitted by the commenter, the FAA cannot address these 
comments.
    NATA noted in a second filing that ``the issuance of the rule 
likely will have virtually no effect on the level of operations by 
aircraft in fractional ownership programs, since the rule was drafted 
to reflect the practices of the current fractional ownership program 
operations. Rather, the growth of fractional ownership programs over 
the past two decades has been, and will continue to be, attributable to 
American-style business innovation, changes in the economy, and 
increases in the perceived benefits of traveling by private aircraft.''

Fractional Aircraft Ownership Operations Compliance Costs

    Certain sections of the proposed rule are expected to impose 
compliance costs on fractional aircraft ownership operations. The FAA 
has analyzed these costs for a 15-year period, from 2003 through 2017. 
As required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the present 
value of this cost stream was calculated using a discount factor of 7 
percent. All costs are expressed in 2001 dollars. These compliance 
costs are summarized below.

Sections 91.519 Passenger Briefing, and 91.1035 Passenger Awareness

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur a one-time cost of $105 for every aircraft for 
briefing cards plus an annual cost of $85 for every aircraft to comply 
with the briefing requirement. Over the 15-year period from 2003 to 
2017, fractional aircraft ownership operations collectively will incur 
compliance costs of approximately $880,000.

Section 91.1003 Management Contract Between Owner and Program Manager

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur compliance costs represented by attorney fees 
of $525 and sundry expenses of $20 for each shareholder to comply with 
the requirement of the rule. Over the 15-

[[Page 54555]]

year period from 2003 to 2017, fractional aircraft ownership operations 
(operating under part 91, subpart K) collectively will incur compliance 
costs of approximately $152,000.

Section 91.1013 Owner's Operational Control Responsibilities

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur compliance costs of $40 to brief each owner on 
the owner's operational control responsibilities upon signing an 
initial contract and upon renewal which is generally every 5 years. 
Over the 15-year period from 2003 to 2017, fractional aircraft 
ownership operations (operating under part 91, subpart K) collectively 
will incur compliance costs of approximately $921,000.

Section 91.1015 Management Specifications

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur compliance costs of $125,400 in the first year 
of operation and $6,270 annually in subsequent years to comply with 
this requirement. Over the 15-year period from 2003 to 2017, fractional 
aircraft ownership program operations (operating under part 91, subpart 
K) collectively will incur compliance costs of approximately $2.2 
million.

Section 91.1017 Amending Program Manager's Management Specifications

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur compliance costs of $155 annually to comply 
with this requirement. Over the 15-year period from 2003 to 2017, 
fractional aircraft ownership program operations (operating under part 
91, subpart K) collectively will incur compliance costs of 
approximately $20,000.

Section 91.1021 Internal Safety Reporting

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur compliance costs of $430 in the first year of 
operation only. Over the 15-year period from 2003 to 2017, fractional 
aircraft ownership program operations (operating under part 91, subpart 
K) collectively will incur compliance costs of approximately $5,000.

Section 91.1023 Program Operating Manual Requirements

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur compliance costs of $10,450 in the first year 
of operation only. Over the 15-year period from 2003 to 2017, 
fractional aircraft ownership program operations collectively will 
incur compliance costs of $125,000.

Section 91.1027 Recordkeeping \1\

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur initial compliance costs of $5,250 in the 
first year of operation only to establish a recordkeeping system. In 
addition, each entity will incur an annual cost of $210 to maintain 
each pilot's records including tracking flight and duty time and an 
additional $680 to prepare a load manifest for each flight. Over the 
15-year period from 2003 to 2017, fractional aircraft ownership program 
operations collectively will incur compliance costs of $15.3 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Captures recordkeeping compliance costs attributable to 
Sec. Sec.  91.1057 and 91.1061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 91.1029 Flight Locating Requirements

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur compliance costs of $210 in each year to 
prepare flight locating information for each flight that is not on an 
FAA flight plan. Over the 15-year period from 2003 to 2017, fractional 
aircraft ownership program operations collectively will incur 
compliance costs of $27,000.

Section 91.1033 Operating Information Required

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur compliance costs of $345 in the first year of 
operation to develop cockpit checklists. Over the 15-year period from 
2003 to 2017, fractional aircraft ownership program operations 
collectively will incur compliance costs of $44,500.

Section 91.1035 Passenger Awareness

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur compliance costs of $85 per aircraft annually 
to provide briefings. Over the 15-year period from 2003 to 2017, 
fractional aircraft ownership program operations collectively will 
incur compliance costs of approximately $791,000.

Section 91.1041 Aircraft Proving Tests

    An existing fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating 
under part 91, subpart K will incur demonstration costs of $2,000 in 
lieu of proving tests in the first year of operation to demonstrate 
their ability to conduct safe operations. New entities will incur 
compliance costs of $9,400 to operate a turbojet aircraft. Over the 15-
year period from 2003 to 2017, fractional aircraft ownership program 
operations collectively will incur compliance costs of approximately 
$68,000.

Section 91.1045 Additional Equipment Requirements

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur compliance costs of $156,750 for 30 percent of 
the year 2003 fleet only, as subsequent aircraft will be appropriately 
equipped voluntarily by the manufacturer consistent with regulatory 
requirements and evolving technology. Over the 15-year period from 2003 
to 2017, fractional aircraft ownership program operations (operating 
under part 91, subpart K) collectively will incur compliance costs of 
approximately $20.2 million.

Section 91.1047 Drug and Alcohol Misuse Education Program

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur negligible costs of $3.30 per shareholder to 
comply with this requirement. Over the 15-year period from 2003 to 
2017, fractional aircraft ownership program operations (operating under 
part 91, subpart K) collectively will incur compliance costs of 
approximately $24,000.

Section 91.1049 Personnel

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur annual costs of $180 to publish monthly flight 
crewmember duty schedules. Over the 15-year period from 2003 to 2017, 
fractional aircraft ownership program operations (operating under part 
91, subpart K) collectively will incur compliance costs of 
approximately $23,000.

Section 91.1051 Pilot Safety Background Check

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur a one-time cost of $4.50 to request personnel 
information for each pilot. Over the 15-year period from 2003 to 2017, 
fractional aircraft ownership program operations (operating under part 
91, subpart K) collectively will incur compliance costs of 
approximately $17,000.

Section 91.1057 Flight, Duty, and Rest Time Requirements

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur recordkeeping costs

[[Page 54556]]

to comply with this requirement. These costs are captured in the 
analysis of Sec.  91.1027.

Section 91.1059 Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements: One or 
Two Pilot Crews

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur limits on ultra-long range flights. The FAA 
has deleted the proposed planned expanded duty definition and the 
proposed limits for such duty in Sec. Sec.  91.1059 and 91.1061 and 
instead is applying limits for augmented crews in Sec.  91.1061 that 
are similar to those currently required in Sec.  135.269 for 
unscheduled 3-or 4-pilot crews. The FAA estimates that this change will 
result in a cost of $1,600 for each ultra-long range flight. Over the 
15-year period from 2003 to 2017, fractional aircraft ownership program 
operations collectively will incur compliance costs of $3.6 million.

Section 91.1061 Augmented Flight Crews

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur recordkeeping costs to comply with this 
requirement. These costs are captured in the analysis of Sec.  
91.1027.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Operating costs associated with augmenting flight crews, 
such as salaries, training, drug and alcohol misuse program, and 
other administrative program costs are captured under the specific 
requirements addressing these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 91.1062 Flight Duty Periods and Rest Requirements: Flight 
Attendants

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur limits on the scheduled duty period they may 
assign a flight attendant who is defined in Sec.  91.1057 as an 
individual whose duties include but are not necessarily limited to 
safety-related responsibilities. It includes individuals either 
required by the program manager's management specifications minimum 
crew complement or in addition to that minimum. The FAA assumes, for 
the purposes of this analysis, that fractional program managers will 
elect the team approach provided for in Sec.  91.1062(b)(2) and 
therefore the duty limitation will principally affect only ultra-long 
range flights. Over the 15-year period from 2003 to 2017, fractional 
aircraft ownership program operations (operating under part 91, subpart 
K) collectively will incur compliance costs of $500 per flight or a 
total of approximately $1.1 million.

Sections 91.1063 through 91.1107 Various Training

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur compliance costs of $209,000 in the first year 
of operation only. Over the 15-year period from 2003 to 2017, 
fractional aircraft ownership program operations collectively will 
incur compliance costs of $2.5 million.

Section 91.1115 Minimum Equipment Lists and Letters of Authorization

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
91, subpart K will incur costs of $5,225 in the first year of operation 
only to comply with this requirement. Negligible compliance costs will 
be incurred in subsequent years of operation and are estimated as to be 
zero. Over the 15-year period from 2003 to 2017, fractional aircraft 
ownership operations collectively will incur compliance costs of 
$63,000.

Federal Aviation Administration Costs

    The current FAA workforce will be sufficient to perform the 
monitoring and surveillance activities associated with administering 
the requirements of the rule. However, it will be necessary for the FAA 
to develop a training course and associated instructional materials to 
educate its inspectors and supervisors in their responsibilities to 
administer the rule. Familiarization training by either satellite 
broadcast or video will be made available to all inspectors while 
inspectors assigned to fractional program operators will undergo a two-
day training program. Accordingly, the FAA estimates that it will incur 
$730,000 in the first year to train its workforce appropriately, and 
will incur $20,000 in each subsequent year for initial training of 
newly assigned inspectors. Additionally, the FAA will incur $683,000 in 
the first year only to prepare and implement management specifications 
for the requirements contained in the rule.
    The FAA also estimates that it will incur annual costs of $95,000. 
This cost is based on the time of existing FAA staff spent reviewing 
and processing program information and clerical support to issue 
written approvals and authorizations submitted to the FAA as identified 
in this document. Over the 15-year period from 2003 to 2017, the FAA 
will incur costs of approximately $3.1 million to administer the 
requirement of the rule.

Benefits

    Most fractional aircraft ownership program operations today are 
conducted in accordance with industry best practices that exceed part 
91 requirements. The FAA believes that the standards of subpart K are 
necessary to assure the continued safety of operations for a fairly new 
and rapidly growing segment of aviation by placing regulatory limits on 
operations that qualify as ``fractional aircraft ownership program'', 
and by clearly delineating the safety responsibilities of fractional 
owners and fractional ownership program managers.

Other Impacts of the Proposed Rule

    Cost savings may be realized by fractional aircraft ownership 
program entities and ``eligible on-demand'' air charter operations as a 
result of the final rule. Eligible on-demand air charter will incur 
costs if they are to realize the cost savings. The impacts are 
summarized below.

Sections 61.57 Exceptions, and 135.247 Pilot Qualifications: Recent 
Experience

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under 
either part 91, subpart K or part 135 and eligible on-demand part 135 
entities will realize annual cost savings of $3,135 per pilot as a 
result of complying with the requirement. Over the 15-year period from 
2003 to 2017, fractional aircraft ownership program operations 
collectively will realize cost savings of approximately $219.6 million. 
Eligible on-demand part 135 operators will realize cost savings of 
approximately $452 million.

Sections 91.509 Survival Equipment for Over-water Operations, and 
135.167 Emergency Equipment: Extended Over-water Operations

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under 
either part 91, subpart K or part 135 has the potential to realize cost 
savings of approximately $3,660 per trip. The amount saved depends on 
the ability of the entity to secure a deviation from this requirement. 
Similar per trip savings would be available to eligible on-demand part 
135 operators.

Section 135.4 Eligible On-demand Operations

    An ``eligible on-demand'' entity operates turbine powered airplanes 
that are type certificated for more than one pilot, have higher 
experienced pilots and have a crew pairing program. The estimated cost 
of these provisions over the 15-year period from 2003 to 2017 is 
approximately $82 million.

[[Page 54557]]

Section 135.145 Aircraft Proving Tests

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
135 will realize cost savings of $36,600 per proving test complying 
with this requirement. Over the 15-year period from 2003 to 2017, 
fractional aircraft ownership program operations (under part 135) 
collectively will realize cost savings of approximately $13.7 million. 
Eligible on-demand part 135 operators will realize cost savings of 
approximately $92 million over the 15-year period.

Section 135.225 IFR: Takeoff, Approach, and Landing

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
135 will realize $36,600 annually in cost savings as a result of this 
requirement. Over the 15-year period from 2003 to 2017, fractional 
aircraft ownership program operations (operating under part 135) 
collectively will realize approximately $1.6 million in cost savings. 
Collectively, eligible on-demand part 135 operators will realize cost 
savings of approximately $34 million over the 15-year period.

Sections 135.251 and 135.255 Testing for Prohibited Drugs and Alcohol

    A fractional aircraft ownership program entity operating under part 
135 will realize $1,700 in cost savings and incur costs of $50 per 
occurrence as a result of this requirement. Over the 15-year period 
from 2003 to 2017, fractional aircraft ownership program operations 
(operating under part 135) collectively will realize approximately $2.6 
million in cost savings and incur costs of approximately $50,000. 
Eligible on-demand part 135 operators will realize $1,385 in cost 
savings and incur costs of $50 per occurrence as a result of this 
requirement. Over the 15-year period these operators collectively will 
realize approximately $17 million in cost savings and incur costs of 
approximately $622,500.

Summary of Costs, Cost Savings, and Benefits

    The total costs of the proposed rule are approximately $133.2 
million ($85.8 million, discounted). Fractional aircraft ownership 
program entities will incur approximately $47.4 million ($35.2 million, 
discounted) of these costs to comply with the requirements contained in 
the rule; while part 135 eligible on-demand entities will incur $82.7 
million ($48.3 million, discounted) in compliance costs. The FAA will 
incur total costs of approximately $3.1 million ($2.3 million, 
discounted) to administer the rule. Fractional aircraft ownership 
program entities will realize approximately $237.4 million in cost 
savings (entities operating under part 91, subpart K will realize 
$132.4 million ($75.6 million, discounted); entities operating under 
part 135 will realize $105 million ($62.5 million, discounted)) while 
eligible on-demand part 135 operators will realize approximately $596 
million ($370.3 million, discounted) in cost savings. The public is 
expected to benefit from enhanced aviation safety directly attributable 
to the proposed rule. These costs, cost savings, and benefits are 
summarized in Table S-1.

         Table S-1. Summary of Costs, Cost Savings, and Benefits
                            [In 2001 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                  Undiscounted       Discounted a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fractional Aircraft Ownership
 Program
Operations Compliance Costs for
 Entities Operating Under:
    Part 91, Subpart K:...........        $47,283,800        $35,123,400
    Part 135:.....................             75,000             45,500
-----------------------------------
        Total.....................         47,358,800         35,168,900
Eligible On-demand part 135                82,689,400         48,326,800
 Operators........................
FAA Administrative Costs..........          3,118,000          2,349,300
-----------------------------------
    Total Costs...................        133,166,200         85,845,000
-----------------------------------
Potential Costs Savings to
 Fractional Aircraft Ownership
 Program Entities Operating Under:
    Part 91, Subpart K:...........        132,416,400         75,600,700
    Part 135:.....................        104,964,800         62,459,700
-----------------------------------
        Total.....................        237,381,200        138,060,400
Eligible On-demand part 135               595,909,700        370,307,000
 Operators........................
-----------------------------------
    Total Cost Savings............        833,290,900        508,367,400
Safety Benefits...................    Enhanced Safety   Enhanced Safety
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Discounted at 7 percent over a 15-year period from 2003 to 2017.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a 
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, 
consistent with the objective of the rule and applicable statutes, to 
fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the 
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to 
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies to 
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the 
rationale for their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small 
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and 
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the 
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in 
the Act.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act provides that 
the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement

[[Page 54558]]

providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning 
should be clear.
    The FAA has determined that the final rule will potentially impact 
12 small businesses and, for the purposes of this analysis, has assumed 
all these firms will operate under subpart K of part 91 thus imposing 
on an entity average compliance costs of approximately $3.9 million 
over the 15-year period (in 2001 dollars). The annualized compliance 
cost to each small business will be approximately $321,350 (in 2001 
dollars) which the current operators have stated will be voluntarily 
incurred. Furthermore, 6 of these 12 entities will be new entrants. The 
FAA has determined that the rule will potentially impose on each new 
(small business) entrant a compliance cost of approximately $617,400 
over a 15-year period (in 2001 dollars). The annualized compliance cost 
to a new entrant will be approximately $57,500 (in 2001 dollars). The 
FAA does not have information on the revenues of these small entrants 
but based on information about one of the current operators, the FAA 
estimates that a program aircraft generates approximately $4.6 million 
in revenues. If a new entrant has two aircraft, the cost that this rule 
will impose on it is less than one percent of the approximate revenues 
generated by those two aircraft. The FAA therefore believes these costs 
will not have a significant impact on small entrants. Hence, the FAA 
has determined that the estimated compliance costs expected to be 
incurred by existing fractional aircraft ownership programs and new 
entrants over the 15-year period will be marginal.
    Eligible on-demand part 135 operators who voluntarily elect to meet 
the requirement of part 135.4 will incur an annual cost of $1,725 for 
one-third of its pilots. Thus, an operator of a single aircraft using 
three pilots will incur a total cost of $1,725 which is less than the 
total cost of a single hour operating the type of turbine powered 
aircraft that meet the requirements of part 135.4. The FAA therefore 
believes this cost will not have a significant impact on small eligible 
on-demand entrants. Therefore, the FAA certifies that the rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards.
    In accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the 
potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined that it will 
impose the same costs on domestic entities and on international 
entities and thus has a neutral trade impact.

Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 Assessment

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as 
Public Law 104-4 on March 22, 1995, is intended, among other things, to 
curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, 
local, and tribal governments.
    Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a 
written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a 
proposed or final rule that may result in a $100 million or more 
expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, 
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory 
action.''
    This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the 
requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do 
not apply.

Federalism Implications

    The regulations herein will not have substantial direct effects on 
the States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive 
Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, it is determined that this rule will 
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation 
of a Federalism Assessment.

Compatibility With ICAO Standards

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention of 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with the 
Standards and Recommended Practices of the International Civil Aviation 
Organization (ICAO) to the maximum extent practicable. ICAO does not 
specifically address fractional ownership. However, in view of the 
FAA's conclusion that fractional ownership program operations conducted 
in conformity with subpart K of 14 CFR part 91 are general aviation 
activities, this final rule does not conflict with ICAO international 
standards applicable to international general aviation operations.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1D defines the FAA actions that may be categorically 
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. In 
accordance with the FAA Order 1050.1D, appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this 
rulemaking action qualifies for a categorical exclusion.

Energy Impact

    The energy impact of this rule has been assessed in accordance with 
42 U.S.C. 6362, ``Energy Conservation Policies and Practices,'' and 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.'' It has been 
determined that the final rule is not a major regulatory action as 
identified in 42 U.S.C. 6362 or is not a significant energy action, as 
defined in Executive Order 13211.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 121

    Air Carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Charter flights, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

14 CFR Part 61

    Aircraft, Airmen, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 91

    Aircraft, Airworthiness directives and standards, Aviation safety, 
Safety.

14 CFR Part 119

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Aircraft, 
Aviation safety, Charter flights, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

14 CFR Part 125

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

14 CFR Part 135

    Aircraft, Airplanes, Airworthiness, Airmen, Rotorcraft, Aviation 
safety, Safety.

14 CFR Part 142

    Training center.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration

[[Page 54559]]

amends parts 21, 61, 91, 119, 125, 135, and 142 of title 14, Code of 
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 21--CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40105, 40113, 
44701-44702, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.


0
2. Amend Sec.  21.197 by adding paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  21.197  Special flight permits.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) Management specification holders authorized to conduct 
operations under part 91, subpart K, for those aircraft they operate 
and maintain under a continuous airworthiness maintenance program 
prescribed by Sec.  91.1411 of this part.

PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND 
INSTRUCTORS

0
3. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-
44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.


0
4. Amend Sec.  61.55 by revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  61.55  Second-in-command qualifications.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Designated and qualified as pilot in command under subpart K of 
part 91, part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter in that specific type of 
aircraft;
    (2) Designated as the second in command under subpart K of part 91, 
part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter in that specific type of 
aircraft;
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  61.57 by revising paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) and (e)(3) as 
follows:


Sec.  61.57  Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.

* * * * *
    (d) Instrument proficiency check. * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) A company check pilot who is authorized to conduct instrument 
flight tests under part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter or subpart K 
of part 91 of this chapter, and provided that both the check pilot and 
the pilot being tested are employees of that operator or fractional 
ownership program manager, as applicable;
* * * * *
    (e) Exceptions. * * *
    (3) Paragraph (b) of this section does not apply to a pilot in 
command of a turbine-powered airplane that is type certificated for 
more than one pilot crewmember, provided that pilot has complied with 
the requirements of paragraph (e)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section:
    (i) The pilot in command must hold at least a commercial pilot 
certificate with the appropriate category, class, and type rating for 
each airplane that is type certificated for more than one pilot 
crewmember that the pilot seeks to operate under this alternative, and:
    (A) That pilot must have logged at least 1,500 hours of 
aeronautical experience as a pilot;
    (B) In each airplane that is type certificated for more than one 
pilot crewmember that the pilot seeks to operate under this 
alternative, that pilot must have accomplished and logged the daytime 
takeoff and landing recent flight experience of paragraph (a) of this 
section, as the sole manipulator of the flight controls;
    (C) Within the preceding 90 days prior to the operation of that 
airplane that is type certificated for more than one pilot crewmember, 
the pilot must have accomplished and logged at least 15 hours of flight 
time in the type of airplane that the pilot seeks to operate under this 
alternative; and
    (D) That pilot has accomplished and logged at least 3 takeoffs and 
3 landings to a full stop, as the sole manipulator of the flight 
controls, in a turbine-powered airplane that requires more than one 
pilot crewmember. The pilot must have performed the takeoffs and 
landings during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 
hour before sunrise within the preceding 6 months prior to the month of 
the flight.
    (ii) The pilot in command must hold at least a commercial pilot 
certificate with the appropriate category, class, and type rating for 
each airplane that is type certificated for more than one pilot 
crewmember that the pilot seeks to operate under this alternative, and:
    (A) That pilot must have logged at least 1,500 hours of 
aeronautical experience as a pilot;
    (B) In each airplane that is type certificated for more than one 
pilot crewmember that the pilot seeks to operate under this 
alternative, that pilot must have accomplished and logged the daytime 
takeoff and landing recent flight experience of paragraph (a) of this 
section, as the sole manipulator of the flight controls;
    (C) Within the preceding 90 days prior to the operation of that 
airplane that is type certificated for more than one pilot crewmember, 
the pilot must have accomplished and logged at least 15 hours of flight 
time in the type of airplane that the pilot seeks to operate under this 
alternative; and
    (D) Within the preceding 12 months prior to the month of the 
flight, the pilot must have completed a training program that is 
approved under part 142 of this chapter. The approved training program 
must have required and the pilot must have performed, at least 6 
takeoffs and 6 landings to a full stop as the sole manipulator of the 
controls in a flight simulator that is representative of a turbine-
powered airplane that requires more than one pilot crewmember. The 
flight simulator's visual system must have been adjusted to represent 
the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before 
sunrise.

0
6. Amend Sec.  61.58 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  61.58  Pilot-in-command proficiency check: Operation of aircraft 
requiring more than one pilot flight crewmember.

* * * * *
    (b) This section does not apply to persons conducting operations 
under subpart K of part 91, part 121, 125, 133, 135, or 137 of this 
chapter, or persons maintaining continuing qualification under an 
Advanced Qualification program approved under SFAR 58.
    (c) The pilot-in-command proficiency check given in accordance with 
the provisions of subpart K of part 91, part 121, 125, or 135 of this 
chapter may be used to satisfy the requirements of this section.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  61.63 by revising the introductory text of paragraph 
(d)(7) and paragraph (d)(7)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  61.63  Additional aircraft ratings (other than on an airline 
transport pilot certificate).

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (7) In the case of a pilot employee of a certificate holder 
operating under part 121 or 135 of this chapter or of a fractional 
ownership program manager under subpart K of part 91 of this chapter, 
must have--
* * * * *
    (ii) Received an endorsement in his or her flight training record 
from the certificate holder or program manager attesting that the 
applicant has completed the certificate holder's or program manager's 
approved ground and flight training program appropriate to the aircraft 
type rating sought.
* * * * *

[[Page 54560]]


0
8. Amend Sec.  61.157 by revising paragraphs (c) and (f)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  61.157  Flight proficiency.

* * * * *
    (c) Exceptions. A person who is applying for an aircraft type 
rating to be added to an airline transport pilot certificate or an 
aircraft type rating concurrently with an airline transport pilot 
certificate, and who is an employee of a certificate holder operating 
under part 121 or 135 of this chapter or of a fractional ownership 
program manager operating under subpart K of part 91 of this chapter, 
need not comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section 
if the applicant presents a training record that shows satisfactory 
completion of that certificate holder's or program manager's approved 
pilot-in-command training program for the aircraft type rating sought.
* * * * *
    (f) Proficiency and competency checks conducted under part 121, 
part 135, or subpart K of part 91. (1) Successful completion of any of 
the following checks satisfy the requirements of this section for the 
appropriate aircraft rating:
    (i) A proficiency check under Sec.  121.441 of this chapter.
    (ii) Both a competency check under Sec.  135.293 of this chapter 
and a pilot-in-command instrument proficiency check under Sec.  135.297 
of this chapter.
    (iii) Both a competency check under Sec.  91.1065 of this chapter 
and a pilot-in-command instrument proficiency check under Sec.  91.1069 
of this chapter.
* * * * *

0
9. Amend Sec.  61.159 by revising paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  61.159  Aeronautical experience: Airplane category rating.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Engaged in operations under subpart K of part 91, part 121, or 
part 135 of this chapter for which a second in command is required; or
* * * * *

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
10. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 
44111, 44701, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 
46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 
articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation 
(61 stat. 1180).


0
11. Amend Sec.  91.189 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  91.189  Category II and III operations: General operating rules.

* * * * *
    (g) Paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section do not apply to 
operations conducted by certificate holders operating under part 121, 
125, 129, or 135 of this chapter, or holders of management 
specifications issued in accordance with subpart K of this part. 
Holders of operations specifications or management specifications may 
operate a civil aircraft in a Category II or Category III operation 
only in accordance with their operations specifications or management 
specifications, as applicable.

0
12. Amend Sec.  91.191 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  91.191  Category II and Category III manual.

* * * * *
    (c) This section does not apply to operations conducted by a 
certificate holder operating under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter 
or a holder of management specifications issued in accordance with 
subpart K of this part.

0
13. Amend Sec.  91.213 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  91.213  Inoperative instruments and equipment.

* * * * *
    (c) A person authorized to use an approved Minimum Equipment List 
issued for a specific aircraft under subpart K of this part, part 121, 
125, or 135 of this chapter must use that Minimum Equipment List to 
comply with the requirements in this section.
* * * * *

0
14. Amend Sec.  91.401 by revising paragraph (b) as follows:


Sec.  91.401  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (a) Sections 91.405, 91.409, 91.411, 91.417, and 91.419 of this 
subpart do not apply to an aircraft maintained in accordance with a 
continuous airworthiness maintenance program as provided in part 121, 
129, or Sec. Sec.  91.1411 or 135.411(a)(2) of this chapter.
* * * * *

0
15. Amend Sec.  91.415 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) as follows:


Sec.  91.415  Changes to aircraft inspection programs.

    (a) Whenever the Administrator finds that revisions to an approved 
aircraft inspection program under Sec.  91.409(f)(4) or Sec.  91.1109 
are necessary for the continued adequacy of the program, the owner or 
operator must, after notification by the Administrator, make any 
changes in the program found to be necessary by the Administrator.
* * * * *
    (c) The petition must be filed with the Director, Flight Standards 
Service within 30 days after the certificate holder or fractional 
ownership program manager receives the notice.
* * * * *

0
16. Revise the title of subpart F to read as follows:

Subpart F--Large and Turbine-Powered Multiengine Airplanes and 
Fractional Ownership Program Aircraft

0
17. Amend Sec.  91.501 by revising paragraph (a), republishing the 
introductory text of paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (b)(10) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  91.501  Applicability.

    (a) This subpart prescribes operating rules, in addition to those 
prescribed in other subparts of this part, governing the operation of 
large airplanes of U.S. registry, turbojet-powered multiengine civil 
airplanes of U.S. registry, and fractional ownership program aircraft 
of U.S. registry that are operating under subpart K of this part in 
operations not involving common carriage. The operating rules in this 
subpart do not apply to those aircraft when they are required to be 
operated under parts 121, 125, 129, 135, and 137 of this chapter. 
(Section 91.409 prescribes an inspection program for large and for 
turbine-powered (turbojet and turboprop) multiengine airplanes and 
turbine-powered rotorcraft of U.S. registry when they are operated 
under this part or part 129 or 137.)
    (b) Operations that may be conducted under the rules in this 
subpart instead of those in parts 121, 129, 135, and 137 of this 
chapter when common carriage is not involved, include--
* * * * *
    (10) Any operation identified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(9) 
of this section when conducted--
    (i) By a fractional ownership program manager, or
    (ii) By a fractional owner in a fractional ownership program 
aircraft operated under subpart K of this part, except that a flight 
under a joint ownership arrangement under paragraph (b)(6) of this 
section may not be conducted. For a flight under an interchange 
agreement under paragraph (b)(6) of this section, the exchange of equal 
time for the operation must be properly accounted for as part of the

[[Page 54561]]

total hours associated with the fractional owner's share of ownership.
* * * * *

0
18. Amend Sec.  91.509 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, 
(c), (d) and (e) and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  91.509  Survival equipment for overwater operations.

* * * * *
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person 
may take off an airplane for flight over water more than 30 minutes 
flying time or 100 nautical miles from the nearest shore, whichever is 
less, unless it has on board the following survival equipment:
* * * * *
    (c) A fractional ownership program manager under subpart K of this 
part may apply for a deviation from paragraphs (b)(2) through (5) of 
this section for a particular over water operation or the Administrator 
may amend the management specifications to require the carriage of all 
or any specific items of the equipment listed in paragraphs (b)(2) 
through (5) of this section.
    (d) The required life rafts, life preservers, and signaling devices 
must be installed in conspicuously marked locations and easily 
accessible in the event of a ditching without appreciable time for 
preparatory procedures.
    (e) A survival kit, appropriately equipped for the route to be 
flown, must be attached to each required life raft.
    (f) As used in this section, the term shore means that area of the 
land adjacent to the water that is above the high water mark and 
excludes land areas that are intermittently under water.

0
19. Amend Sec.  91.519 by adding paragraph (d) as follows:


Sec.  91.519  Passenger briefing.

* * * * *
    (d) For operations under subpart K of this part, the passenger 
briefing requirements of Sec.  91.1035 apply, instead of the 
requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.

0
20. Amend Sec.  91.531 by revising the introductory text of paragraph 
(a) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  91.531  Second in command requirements.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) and (d) of this section, no 
person may operate the following airplanes without a pilot who is 
designated as second in command of that airplane:
* * * * *
    (d) No person may operate an aircraft under subpart K of this part 
without a pilot who is designated as second in command of that aircraft 
in accordance with Sec.  91.1049(d). The second in command must meet 
the experience requirements of Sec.  91.1053.

0
21. Add subpart K to part 91 of title 14 Code of Federal Regulations to 
read as follows:
Subpart K--Fractional Ownership Operations
Sec.
91.1001 Applicability.
91.1002 Compliance date.
91.1003 Management contract between owner and program manager.
91.1005 Prohibitions and limitations.
91.1007 Flights conducted under part 121 or part 135 of this 
chapter.
91.1009 Clarification of operational control.
91.1011 Operational control responsibilities and delegation.
91.1013 Operational control briefing and acknowledgment.
91.1014 Issuing or denying management specifications.
91.1015 Management specifications.
91.1017 Amending program manager's management specifications.
91.1019 Conducting tests and inspections.
91.1021 Internal safety reporting and incident/accident response.
91.1023 Program operating manual requirements.
91.1025 Program operating manual contents.
91.1027 Recordkeeping.
91.1029 Flight scheduling and locating requirements.
91.1031 Pilot in command or second in command: Designation required.
91.1033 Operating information required.
91.1035 Passenger awareness.
91.1037 Large transport category airplanes: Turbine engine powered; 
Limitations; Destination and alternate airports.
91.1039 IFR takeoff, approach and landing minimums.
91.1041 Aircraft proving and validation tests.
91.1043 [Reserved].
91.1045 Additional equipment requirements.
91.1047 Drug and alcohol misuse education program.
91.1049 Personnel.
91.1051 Pilot safety background check.
91.1053 Crewmember experience.
91.1055 Pilot operating limitations and pairing requirement.
91.1057 Flight, duty and rest time requirements; All crewmembers.
91.1059 Flight time limitations and rest requirements: One or two 
pilot crews.
91.1061 Augmented flight crews.
91.1062 Duty periods and rest requirements: Flight attendants.
91.1063 Testing and training: Applicability and terms used.
91.1065 Initial and recurrent pilot testing requirements.
91.1067 Initial and recurrent flight attendant crewmember testing 
requirements.
91.1069 Flight crew: Instrument proficiency check requirements.
91.1071 Crewmember: Tests and checks, grace provisions, training to 
accepted standards.
91.1073 Training program: General.
91.1075 Training program: Special rules.
91.1077 Training program and revision: Initial and final approval.
91.1079 Training program: Curriculum.
91.1081 Crewmember training requirements.
91.1083 Crewmember emergency training.
91.1085 Hazardous materials recognition training.
91.1087 Approval of aircraft simulators and other training devices.
91.1089 Qualifications: Check pilots (aircraft) and check pilots 
(simulator).
91.1091 Qualifications: Flight instructors (aircraft) and flight 
instructors (simulator).
91.1093 Initial and transition training and checking: Check pilots 
(aircraft), check pilots (simulator).
91.1095 Initial and transition training and checking: Flight 
instructors (aircraft), flight instructors (simulator).
91.1097 Pilot and flight attendant crewmember training programs.
91.1099 Crewmember initial and recurrent training requirements.
91.1101 Pilots: Initial, transition, and upgrade ground training.
91.1103 Pilots: Initial, transition, upgrade, requalification, and 
differences flight training.
91.1105 Flight attendants: Initial and transition ground training.
91.1107 Recurrent training.
91.1109 Aircraft maintenance: Inspection program.
91.1111 Maintenance training.
91.1113 Maintenance recordkeeping.
91.1115 Inoperable instruments and equipment.
91.1411 Continuous airworthiness maintenance program use by 
fractional ownership program manager.
91.1413 CAMP: Responsibility for airworthiness.
91.1415 CAMP: Mechanical reliability reports.
91.1417 CAMP: Mechanical interruption summary report.
91.1423 CAMP: Maintenance organization.
91.1425 CAMP: Maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration 
programs.
91.1427 CAMP: Manual requirements.
91.1429 CAMP: Required inspection personnel.
91.1431 CAMP: Continuing analysis and surveillance.
91.1433 CAMP: Maintenance and preventive maintenance training 
program.
91.1435 CAMP: Certificate requirements.
91.1437 CAMP: Authority to perform and approve maintenance.
91.1439 CAMP: Maintenance recording requirements.
91.1441 CAMP: Transfer of maintenance records.
91.1443 CAMP: Airworthiness release or aircraft maintenance log 
entry.

[[Page 54562]]

Subpart K--Fractional Ownership Operations


Sec.  91.1001  Applicability.

    (a) This subpart prescribes rules, in addition to those prescribed 
in other subparts of this part, that apply to fractional owners and 
fractional ownership program managers governing--
    (1) The provision of program management services in a fractional 
ownership program;
    (2) The operation of a fractional ownership program aircraft in a 
fractional ownership program; and
    (3) The operation of a program aircraft included in a fractional 
ownership program managed by an affiliate of the manager of the program 
to which the owner belongs.
    (b) As used in this part--
    (1) Affiliate of a program manager means a manager that, directly, 
or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, is 
controlled by, or is under common control with, another program 
manager. The holding of at least forty percent (40 percent) of the 
equity and forty percent (40 percent) of the voting power of an entity 
will be presumed to constitute control for purposes of determining an 
affiliation under this subpart.
    (2) A dry-lease aircraft exchange means an arrangement, documented 
by the written program agreements, under which the program aircraft are 
available, on an as needed basis without crew, to each fractional 
owner.
    (3) A fractional owner or owner means an individual or entity that 
possesses a minimum fractional ownership interest in a program aircraft 
and that has entered into the applicable program agreements; provided, 
however, that in the case of the flight operations described in 
paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section, and solely for purposes of 
requirements pertaining to those flight operations, the fractional 
owner operating the aircraft will be deemed to be a fractional owner in 
the program managed by the affiliate.
    (4) A fractional ownership interest means the ownership of an 
interest or holding of a multi-year leasehold interest and/or a multi-
year leasehold interest that is convertible into an ownership interest 
in a program aircraft.
    (5) A fractional ownership program or program means any system of 
aircraft ownership and exchange that consists of all of the following 
elements:
    (i) The provision for fractional ownership program management 
services by a single fractional ownership program manager on behalf of 
the fractional owners.
    (ii) Two or more airworthy aircraft.
    (iii) One or more fractional owners per program aircraft, with at 
least one program aircraft having more than one owner.
    (iv) Possession of at least a minimum fractional ownership interest 
in one or more program aircraft by each fractional owner.
    (v) A dry-lease aircraft exchange arrangement among all of the 
fractional owners.
    (vi) Multi-year program agreements covering the fractional 
ownership, fractional ownership program management services, and dry-
lease aircraft exchange aspects of the program.
    (6) A fractional ownership program aircraft or program aircraft 
means:
    (i) An aircraft in which a fractional owner has a minimal 
fractional ownership interest and that has been included in the dry-
lease aircraft exchange pursuant to the program agreements, or
    (ii) In the case of a fractional owner from one program operating 
an aircraft in a different fractional ownership program managed by an 
affiliate of the operating owner's program manager, the aircraft being 
operated by the fractional owner, so long as the aircraft is:
    (A) Included in the fractional ownership program managed by the 
affiliate of the operating owner's program manager, and
    (B) Included in the operating owner's program's dry-lease aircraft 
exchange pursuant to the program agreements of the operating owner's 
program.
    (iii) An aircraft owned in whole or in part by the program manager 
that has been included in the dry-lease aircraft exchange and is used 
to supplement program operations.
    (7) A Fractional Ownership Program Flight or Program Flight means a 
flight under this subpart when one or more passengers or property 
designated by a fractional owner are on board the aircraft.
    (8) Fractional ownership program management services or program 
management services mean administrative and aviation support services 
furnished in accordance with the applicable requirements of this 
subpart or provided by the program manager on behalf of the fractional 
owners, including, but not limited to, the--
    (i) Establishment and implementation of program safety guidelines;
    (ii) Employment, furnishing, or contracting of pilots and other 
crewmembers;
    (iii) Training and qualification of pilots and other crewmembers 
and personnel;
    (iv) Scheduling and coordination of the program aircraft and crews;
    (v) Maintenance of program aircraft;
    (vi) Satisfaction of recordkeeping requirements;
    (vii) Development and use of a program operations manual and 
procedures; and
    (viii) Application for and maintenance of management specifications 
and other authorizations and approvals.
    (9) A fractional ownership program manager or program manager means 
the entity that offers fractional ownership program management services 
to fractional owners, and is designated in the multi-year program 
agreements referenced in paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section to fulfill 
the requirements of this chapter applicable to the manager of the 
program containing the aircraft being flown. When a fractional owner is 
operating an aircraft in a fractional ownership program managed by an 
affiliate of the owner's program manager, the references in this 
subpart to the flight-related responsibilities of the program manager 
apply, with respect to that particular flight, to the affiliate of the 
owner's program manager rather than to the owner's program manager.
    (10) A minimum fractional ownership interest means--
    (i) A fractional ownership interest equal to, or greater than, one-
sixteenth (\1/16\) of at least one subsonic, fixed-wing or powered-lift 
program aircraft; or
    (ii) A fractional ownership interest equal to, or greater than, 
one-thirty-second (\1/32\) of at least one rotorcraft program aircraft.
    (c) The rules in this subpart that refer to a fractional owner or a 
fractional ownership program manager also apply to any person who 
engages in an operation governed by this subpart without the management 
specifications required by this subpart.


Sec.  91.1002  Compliance date.

    No person that conducted flights before October 17, 2003 under a 
program that meets the definition of fractional ownership program in 
Sec.  91.1001 may conduct such flights after December 17, 2004 unless 
it has obtained management specifications under this subpart.


Sec.  91.1003  Management contract between owner and program manager.

    Each owner must have a contract with the program manager that--

[[Page 54563]]

    (a) Requires the program manager to ensure that the program 
conforms to all applicable requirements of this chapter.
    (b) Provides the owner the right to inspect and to audit, or have a 
designee of the owner inspect and audit, the records of the program 
manager pertaining to the operational safety of the program and those 
records required to show compliance with the management specifications 
and all applicable regulations. These records include, but are not 
limited to, the management specifications, authorizations, approvals, 
manuals, log books, and maintenance records maintained by the program 
manager.
    (c) Designates the program manager as the owner's agent to receive 
service of notices pertaining to the program that the FAA seeks to 
provide to owners and authorizes the FAA to send such notices to the 
program manager in its capacity as the agent of the owner for such 
service.
    (d) Acknowledges the FAA's right to contact the owner directly if 
the Administrator determines that direct contact is necessary.


Sec.  91.1005  Prohibitions and limitations.

    (a) Except as provided in Sec.  91.321 or Sec.  91.501, no owner 
may carry persons or property for compensation or hire on a program 
flight.
    (b) During the term of the multi-year program agreements under 
which a fractional owner has obtained a minimum fractional ownership 
interest in a program aircraft, the flight hours used during that term 
by the owner on program aircraft must not exceed the total hours 
associated with the fractional owner's share of ownership.
    (c) No person may sell or lease an aircraft interest in a 
fractional ownership program that is smaller than that prescribed in 
the definition of ``minimum fractional ownership interest'' in Sec.  
91.1001(b)(10) unless flights associated with that interest are 
operated under part 121 or 135 of this chapter and are conducted by an 
air carrier or commercial operator certificated under part 119 of this 
chapter.


Sec.  91.1007  Flights conducted under part 121 or part 135 of this 
chapter.

    (a) Except as provided in Sec.  91.501(b), when a nonprogram 
aircraft is used to substitute for a program flight, the flight must be 
operated in compliance with part 121 or part 135 of this chapter, as 
applicable.
    (b) A program manager who holds a certificate under part 119 of 
this chapter may conduct a flight for the use of a fractional owner 
under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter if the aircraft is listed on 
that certificate holder's operations specifications for part 121 or 
part 135, as applicable.
    (c) The fractional owner must be informed when a flight is being 
conducted as a program flight or is being conducted under part 121 or 
part 135 of this chapter.

Operational Control


Sec.  91.1009  Clarification of operational control.

    (a) An owner is in operational control of a program flight when the 
owner--
    (1) Has the rights and is subject to the limitations set forth in 
Sec. Sec.  91.1003 through 91.1013;
    (2) Has directed that a program aircraft carry passengers or 
property designated by that owner; and
    (3) The aircraft is carrying those passengers or property.
    (b) An owner is not in operational control of a flight in the 
following circumstances:
    (1) A program aircraft is used for a flight for administrative 
purposes such as demonstration, positioning, ferrying, maintenance, or 
crew training, and no passengers or property designated by such owner 
are being carried; or
    (2) The aircraft being used for the flight is being operated under 
part 121 or 135 of this chapter.


Sec.  91.1011  Operational control responsibilities and delegation.

    (a) Each owner in operational control of a program flight is 
ultimately responsible for safe operations and for complying with all 
applicable requirements of this chapter, including those related to 
airworthiness and operations in connection with the flight. Each owner 
may delegate some or all of the performance of the tasks associated 
with carrying out this responsibility to the program manager, and may 
rely on the program manager for aviation expertise and program 
management services. When the owner delegates performance of tasks to 
the program manager or relies on the program manager's expertise, the 
owner and the program manager are jointly and individually responsible 
for compliance.
    (b) The management specifications, authorizations, and approvals 
required by this subpart are issued to, and in the sole name of, the 
program manager on behalf of the fractional owners collectively. The 
management specifications, authorizations, and approvals will not be 
affected by any change in ownership of a program aircraft, as long as 
the aircraft remains a program aircraft in the identified program.


Sec.  91.1013  Operational control briefing and acknowledgment.

    (a) Upon the signing of an initial program management services 
contract, or a renewal or extension of a program management services 
contract, the program manager must brief the fractional owner on the 
owner's operational control responsibilities, and the owner must review 
and sign an acknowledgment of these operational control 
responsibilities. The acknowledgment must be included with the program 
management services contract. The acknowledgment must define when a 
fractional owner is in operational control and the owner's 
responsibilities and liabilities under the program. These include:
    (1) Responsibility for compliance with the management 
specifications and all applicable regulations.
    (2) Enforcement actions for any noncompliance.
    (3) Liability risk in the event of a flight-related occurrence that 
causes personal injury or property damage.
    (b) The fractional owner's signature on the acknowledgment will 
serve as the owner's affirmation that the owner has read, understands, 
and accepts the operational control responsibilities described in the 
acknowledgment.
    (c) Each program manager must ensure that the fractional owner or 
owner's representatives have access to the acknowledgments for such 
owner's program aircraft. Each program manager must ensure that the FAA 
has access to the acknowledgments for all program aircraft.

Program Management


Sec.  91.1014  Issuing or denying management specifications.

    (a) A person applying to the Administrator for management 
specifications under this subpart must submit an application--
    (1) In a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator; and
    (2) Containing any information the Administrator requires the 
applicant to submit.
    (b) Management specifications will be issued to the program manager 
on behalf of the fractional owners if, after investigation, the 
Administrator finds that the applicant:
    (1) Meets the applicable requirements of this subpart; and
    (2) Is properly and adequately equipped in accordance with the 
requirements of this chapter and is able to conduct safe operations 
under appropriate provisions of part 91 of this

[[Page 54564]]

chapter and management specifications issued under this subpart.
    (c) An application for management specifications will be denied if 
the Administrator finds that the applicant is not properly or 
adequately equipped or is not able to conduct safe operations under 
this part.


Sec.  91.1015  Management specifications.

    (a) Each person conducting operations under this subpart or 
furnishing fractional ownership program management services to 
fractional owners must do so in accordance with management 
specifications issued by the Administrator to the fractional ownership 
program manager under this subpart. Management specifications must 
include:
    (1) The current list of all fractional owners and types of 
aircraft, registration markings and serial numbers;
    (2) The authorizations, limitations, and certain procedures under 
which these operations are to be conducted,
    (3) Certain other procedures under which each class and size of 
aircraft is to be operated;
    (4) Authorization for an inspection program approved under Sec.  
91.1109, including the type of aircraft, the registration markings and 
serial numbers of each aircraft to be operated under the program. No 
person may conduct any program flight using any aircraft not listed.
    (5) Time limitations, or standards for determining time 
limitations, for overhauls, inspections, and checks for airframes, 
engines, propellers, rotors, appliances, and emergency equipment of 
aircraft.
    (6) The specific location of the program manager's principal base 
of operations and, if different, the address that will serve as the 
primary point of contact for correspondence between the FAA and the 
program manager and the name and mailing address of the program 
manager's agent for service;
    (7) Other business names the program manager may use;
    (8) Authorization for the method of controlling weight and balance 
of aircraft;
    (9) Any authorized deviation and exemption granted from any 
requirement of this chapter; and
    (10) Any other information the Administrator determines is 
necessary.
    (b) The program manager may keep the current list of all fractional 
owners required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section at its principal 
base of operation or other location approved by the Administrator and 
referenced in its management specifications. Each program manager shall 
make this list of owners available for inspection by the Administrator.
    (c) Management specifications issued under this subpart are 
effective unless--
    (1) The management specifications are amended as provided in Sec.  
91.1017; or
    (2) The Administrator suspends or revokes the management 
specifications.
    (d) At least 30 days before it proposes to establish or change the 
location of its principal base of operations, its main operations base, 
or its main maintenance base, a program manager must provide written 
notification to the Flight Standards District Office that issued the 
program manager's management specifications.
    (e) Each program manager must maintain a complete and separate set 
of its management specifications at its principal base of operations, 
or at a place approved by the Administrator, and must make its 
management specifications available for inspection by the Administrator 
and the fractional owner(s) to whom the program manager furnishes its 
services for review and audit.
    (f) Each program manager must insert pertinent excerpts of its 
management specifications, or references thereto, in its program manual 
and must--
    (1) Clearly identify each such excerpt as a part of its management 
specifications; and
    (2) State that compliance with each management specifications 
requirement is mandatory.
    (g) Each program manager must keep each of its employees and other 
persons who perform duties material to its operations informed of the 
provisions of its management specifications that apply to that 
employee's or person's duties and responsibilities.


Sec.  91.1017  Amending program manager's management specifications.

    (a) The Administrator may amend any management specifications 
issued under this subpart if--
    (1) The Administrator determines that safety and the public 
interest require the amendment of any management specifications; or
    (2) The program manager applies for the amendment of any management 
specifications, and the Administrator determines that safety and the 
public interest allows the amendment.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, when the 
Administrator initiates an amendment of a program manager's management 
specifications, the following procedure applies:
    (1) The Flight Standards District Office that issued the program 
manager's management specifications will notify the program manager in 
writing of the proposed amendment.
    (2) The Flight Standards District Office that issued the program 
manager's management specifications will set a reasonable period (but 
not less than 7 days) within which the program manager may submit 
written information, views, and arguments on the amendment.
    (3) After considering all material presented, the Flight Standards 
District Office that issued the program manager's management 
specifications will notify the program manager of--
    (i) The adoption of the proposed amendment,
    (ii) The partial adoption of the proposed amendment, or
    (iii) The withdrawal of the proposed amendment.
    (4) If the Flight Standards District Office that issued the program 
manager's management specifications issues an amendment of the 
management specifications, it becomes effective not less than 30 days 
after the program manager receives notice of it unless--
    (i) The Flight Standards District Office that issued the program 
manager's management specifications finds under paragraph (e) of this 
section that there is an emergency requiring immediate action with 
respect to safety; or
    (ii) The program manager petitions for reconsideration of the 
amendment under paragraph (d) of this section.
    (c) When the program manager applies for an amendment to its 
management specifications, the following procedure applies:
    (1) The program manager must file an application to amend its 
management specifications--
    (i) At least 90 days before the date proposed by the applicant for 
the amendment to become effective, unless a shorter time is approved, 
in cases such as mergers, acquisitions of operational assets that 
require an additional showing of safety (for example, proving tests or 
validation tests), and resumption of operations following a suspension 
of operations as a result of bankruptcy actions.
    (ii) At least 15 days before the date proposed by the applicant for 
the amendment to become effective in all other cases.
    (2) The application must be submitted to the Flight Standards 
District Office that issued the program manager's management 
specifications in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator.
    (3) After considering all material presented, the Flight Standards 
District Office that issued the program

[[Page 54565]]

manager's management specifications will notify the program manager 
of--
    (i) The adoption of the applied for amendment;
    (ii) The partial adoption of the applied for amendment; or
    (iii) The denial of the applied for amendment. The program manager 
may petition for reconsideration of a denial under paragraph (d) of 
this section.
    (4) If the Flight Standards District Office that issued the program 
manager's management specifications approves the amendment, following 
coordination with the program manager regarding its implementation, the 
amendment is effective on the date the Administrator approves it.
    (d) When a program manager seeks reconsideration of a decision of 
the Flight Standards District Office that issued the program manager's 
management specifications concerning the amendment of management 
specifications, the following procedure applies:
    (1) The program manager must petition for reconsideration of that 
decision within 30 days of the date that the program manager receives a 
notice of denial of the amendment of its management specifications, or 
of the date it receives notice of an FAA-initiated amendment of its 
management specifications, whichever circumstance applies.
    (2) The program manager must address its petition to the Director, 
Flight Standards Service.
    (3) A petition for reconsideration, if filed within the 30-day 
period, suspends the effectiveness of any amendment issued by the 
Flight Standards District Office that issued the program manager's 
management specifications unless that District Office has found, under 
paragraph (e) of this section, that an emergency exists requiring 
immediate action with respect to safety.
    (4) If a petition for reconsideration is not filed within 30 days, 
the procedures of paragraph (c) of this section apply.
    (e) If the Flight Standards District Office that issued the program 
manager's management specifications finds that an emergency exists 
requiring immediate action with respect to safety that makes the 
procedures set out in this section impracticable or contrary to the 
public interest--
    (1) The Flight Standards District Office amends the management 
specifications and makes the amendment effective on the day the program 
manager receives notice of it; and
    (2) In the notice to the program manager, the Flight Standards 
District Office will articulate the reasons for its finding that an 
emergency exists requiring immediate action with respect to safety or 
that makes it impracticable or contrary to the public interest to stay 
the effectiveness of the amendment.


Sec.  91.1019  Conducting tests and inspections.

    (a) At any time or place, the Administrator may conduct an 
inspection or test, other than an en route inspection, to determine 
whether a program manager under this subpart is complying with title 49 
of the United States Code, applicable regulations, and the program 
manager's management specifications.
    (b) The program manager must--
    (1) Make available to the Administrator at the program manager's 
principal base of operations, or at a place approved by the 
Administrator, the program manager's management specifications; and
    (2) Allow the Administrator to make any test or inspection, other 
than an en route inspection, to determine compliance respecting any 
matter stated in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Each employee of, or person used by, the program manager who is 
responsible for maintaining the program manager's records required by 
or necessary to demonstrate compliance with this subpart must make 
those records available to the Administrator.
    (d) The Administrator may determine a program manager's continued 
eligibility to hold its management specifications on any grounds listed 
in paragraph (a) of this section, or any other appropriate grounds.
    (e) Failure by any program manager to make available to the 
Administrator upon request, the management specifications, or any 
required record, document, or report is grounds for suspension of all 
or any part of the program manager's management specifications.


Sec.  91.1021  Internal safety reporting and incident/accident 
response.

    (a) Each program manager must establish an internal anonymous 
safety reporting procedure that fosters an environment of safety 
without any potential for retribution for filing the report.
    (b) Each program manager must establish procedures to respond to an 
aviation incident/accident.


Sec.  91.1023  Program operating manual requirements.

    (a) Each program manager must prepare and keep current a program 
operating manual setting forth procedures and policies acceptable to 
the Administrator. The program manager's management, flight, ground, 
and maintenance personnel must use this manual to conduct operations 
under this subpart. However, the Administrator may authorize a 
deviation from this paragraph if the Administrator finds that, because 
of the limited size of the operation, part of the manual is not 
necessary for guidance of management, flight, ground, or maintenance 
personnel.
    (b) Each program manager must maintain at least one copy of the 
manual at its principal base of operations.
    (c) No manual may be contrary to any applicable U.S. regulations, 
foreign regulations applicable to the program flights in foreign 
countries, or the program manager's management specifications.
    (d) The program manager must make a copy of the manual, or 
appropriate portions of the manual (and changes and additions), 
available to its maintenance and ground operations personnel and must 
furnish the manual to--
    (1) Its crewmembers; and
    (2) Representatives of the Administrator assigned to the program 
manager.
    (e) Each employee of the program manager to whom a manual or 
appropriate portions of it are furnished under paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section must keep it up-to-date with the changes and additions 
furnished to them.
    (f) Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section, the 
appropriate parts of the manual must be carried on each aircraft when 
away from the principal operations base. The appropriate parts must be 
available for use by ground or flight personnel.
    (g) For the purpose of complying with paragraph (d) of this 
section, a program manager may furnish the persons listed therein with 
all or part of its manual in printed form or other form, acceptable to 
the Administrator, that is retrievable in the English language. If the 
program manager furnishes all or part of the manual in other than 
printed form, it must ensure there is a compatible reading device 
available to those persons that provides a legible image of the 
maintenance information and instructions, or a system that is able to 
retrieve the maintenance information and instructions in the English 
language.
    (h) If a program manager conducts aircraft inspections or 
maintenance at specified facilities where the approved aircraft 
inspection program is available, the program manager is not required to 
ensure that the approved aircraft

[[Page 54566]]

inspection program is carried aboard the aircraft en route to those 
facilities.
    (i) Program managers that are also certificated to operate under 
part 121 or 135 of this chapter may be authorized to use the operating 
manual required by those parts to meet the manual requirements of 
subpart K, provided:
    (1) The policies and procedures are consistent for both operations, 
or
    (2) When policies and procedures are different, the applicable 
policies and procedures are identified and used.


Sec.  91.1025  Program operating manual contents.

    Each program operating manual must have the date of the last 
revision on each revised page. Unless otherwise authorized by the 
Administrator, the manual must include the following:
    (a) Procedures for ensuring compliance with aircraft weight and 
balance limitations;
    (b) Copies of the program manager's management specifications or 
appropriate extracted information, including area of operations 
authorized, category and class of aircraft authorized, crew 
complements, and types of operations authorized;
    (c) Procedures for complying with accident notification 
requirements;
    (d) Procedures for ensuring that the pilot in command knows that 
required airworthiness inspections have been made and that the aircraft 
has been approved for return to service in compliance with applicable 
maintenance requirements;
    (e) Procedures for reporting and recording mechanical 
irregularities that come to the attention of the pilot in command 
before, during, and after completion of a flight;
    (f) Procedures to be followed by the pilot in command for 
determining that mechanical irregularities or defects reported for 
previous flights have been corrected or that correction of certain 
mechanical irregularities or defects have been deferred;
    (g) Procedures to be followed by the pilot in command to obtain 
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and servicing of the aircraft at a 
place where previous arrangements have not been made by the program 
manager or owner, when the pilot is authorized to so act for the 
operator;
    (h) Procedures under Sec.  91.213 for the release of, and 
continuation of flight if any item of equipment required for the 
particular type of operation becomes inoperative or unserviceable en 
route;
    (i) Procedures for refueling aircraft, eliminating fuel 
contamination, protecting from fire (including electrostatic 
protection), and supervising and protecting passengers during 
refueling;
    (j) Procedures to be followed by the pilot in command in the 
briefing under Sec.  91.1035.
    (k) Procedures for ensuring compliance with emergency procedures, 
including a list of the functions assigned each category of required 
crewmembers in connection with an emergency and emergency evacuation 
duties;
    (l) The approved aircraft inspection program, when applicable;
    (m) Procedures for the evacuation of persons who may need the 
assistance of another person to move expeditiously to an exit if an 
emergency occurs;
    (n) Procedures for performance planning that take into account take 
off, landing and en route conditions;
    (o) An approved Destination Airport Analysis, when required by 
Sec.  91.1037(c), that includes the following elements, supported by 
aircraft performance data supplied by the aircraft manufacturer for the 
appropriate runway conditions--
    (1) Pilot qualifications and experience;
    (2) Aircraft performance data to include normal, abnormal and 
emergency procedures as supplied by the aircraft manufacturer;
    (3) Airport facilities and topography;
    (4) Runway conditions (including contamination);
    (5) Airport or area weather reporting;
    (6) Appropriate additional runway safety margins, if required;
    (7) Airplane inoperative equipment;
    (8) Environmental conditions; and
    (9) Other criteria that affect aircraft performance.
    (p) A suitable system (which may include a coded or electronic 
system) that provides for preservation and retrieval of maintenance 
recordkeeping information required by Sec.  91.1113 in a manner 
acceptable to the Administrator that provides--
    (1) A description (or reference to date acceptable to the 
Administrator) of the work performed:
    (2) The name of the person performing the work if the work is 
performed by a person outside the organization of the program manager; 
and
    (3) The name or other positive identification of the individual 
approving the work.
    (q) Flight locating and scheduling procedures; and
    (r) Other procedures and policy instructions regarding program 
operations that are issued by the program manager or required by the 
Administrator.


Sec.  91.1027  Recordkeeping.

    (a) Each program manager must keep at its principal base of 
operations or at other places approved by the Administrator, and must 
make available for inspection by the Administrator all of the 
following:
    (1) The program manager's management specifications.
    (2) A current list of the aircraft used or available for use in 
operations under this subpart, the operations for which each is 
equipped (for example, MNPS, RNP5/10, RVSM.).
    (3) An individual record of each pilot used in operations under 
this subpart, including the following information:
    (i) The full name of the pilot.
    (ii) The pilot certificate (by type and number) and ratings that 
the pilot holds.
    (iii) The pilot's aeronautical experience in sufficient detail to 
determine the pilot's qualifications to pilot aircraft in operations 
under this subpart.
    (iv) The pilot's current duties and the date of the pilot's 
assignment to those duties.
    (v) The effective date and class of the medical certificate that 
the pilot holds.
    (vi) The date and result of each of the initial and recurrent 
competency tests and proficiency checks required by this subpart and 
the type of aircraft flown during that test or check.
    (vii) The pilot's flight time in sufficient detail to determine 
compliance with the flight time limitations of this subpart.
    (viii) The pilot's check pilot authorization, if any.
    (ix) Any action taken concerning the pilot's release from 
employment for physical or professional disqualification; and
    (x) The date of the satisfactory completion of initial, transition, 
upgrade, and differences training and each recurrent training phase 
required by this subpart.
    (4) An individual record for each flight attendant used in 
operations under this subpart, including the following information:
    (i) The full name of the flight attendant, and
    (ii) The date and result of training required by Sec.  91.1063, as 
applicable.
    (5) A current list of all fractional owners and associated 
aircraft. This list or a reference to its location must be included in 
the management specifications and should be of sufficient detail to 
determine the minimum fractional ownership interest of each aircraft.
    (b) Each program manager must keep each record required by 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section for at least 6 months, and

[[Page 54567]]

must keep each record required by paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this 
section for at least 12 months. When an employee is no longer employed 
or affiliated with the program manager or fractional owner, each record 
required by paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this section must be 
retained for at least 12 months.
    (c) Each program manager is responsible for the preparation and 
accuracy of a load manifest in duplicate containing information 
concerning the loading of the aircraft. The manifest must be prepared 
before each takeoff and must include--
    (1) The number of passengers;
    (2) The total weight of the loaded aircraft;
    (3) The maximum allowable takeoff weight for that flight;
    (4) The center of gravity limits;
    (5) The center of gravity of the loaded aircraft, except that the 
actual center of gravity need not be computed if the aircraft is loaded 
according to a loading schedule or other approved method that ensures 
that the center of gravity of the loaded aircraft is within approved 
limits. In those cases, an entry must be made on the manifest 
indicating that the center of gravity is within limits according to a 
loading schedule or other approved method;
    (6) The registration number of the aircraft or flight number;
    (7) The origin and destination; and
    (8) Identification of crewmembers and their crew position 
assignments.
    (d) The pilot in command of the aircraft for which a load manifest 
must be prepared must carry a copy of the completed load manifest in 
the aircraft to its destination. The program manager must keep copies 
of completed load manifest for at least 30 days at its principal 
operations base, or at another location used by it and approved by the 
Administrator.
    (e) Each program manager is responsible for providing a written 
document that states the name of the entity having operational control 
on that flight and the part of this chapter under which the flight is 
operated. The pilot in command of the aircraft must carry a copy of the 
document in the aircraft to its destination. The program manager must 
keep a copy of the document for at least 30 days at its principal 
operations base, or at another location used by it and approved by the 
Administrator.
    (f) Records may be kept either in paper or other form acceptable to 
the Administrator.
    (g) Program managers that are also certificated to operate under 
part 121 or 135 of this chapter may satisfy the recordkeeping 
requirements of this section and of Sec.  91.1113 with records 
maintained to fulfill equivalent obligations under part 121 or 135 of 
this chapter.


Sec.  91.1029  Flight scheduling and locating requirements.

    (a) Each program manager must establish and use an adequate system 
to schedule and release program aircraft.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each 
program manager must have adequate procedures established for locating 
each flight, for which a flight plan is not filed, that--
    (1) Provide the program manager with at least the information 
required to be included in a VFR flight plan;
    (2) Provide for timely notification of an FAA facility or search 
and rescue facility, if an aircraft is overdue or missing; and
    (3) Provide the program manager with the location, date, and 
estimated time for reestablishing radio or telephone communications, if 
the flight will operate in an area where communications cannot be 
maintained.
    (c) Flight locating information must be retained at the program 
manager's principal base of operations, or at other places designated 
by the program manager in the flight locating procedures, until the 
completion of the flight.
    (d) The flight locating requirements of paragraph (b) of this 
section do not apply to a flight for which an FAA flight plan has been 
filed and the flight plan is canceled within 25 nautical miles of the 
destination airport.


Sec.  91.1031  Pilot in command or second in command: Designation 
required.

    (a) Each program manager must designate a--
    (1) Pilot in command for each program flight; and
    (2) Second in command for each program flight requiring two pilots.
    (b) The pilot in command, as designated by the program manager, 
must remain the pilot in command at all times during that flight.


Sec.  91.1033  Operating information required.

    (a) Each program manager must, for all program operations, provide 
the following materials, in current and appropriate form, accessible to 
the pilot at the pilot station, and the pilot must use them--
    (1) A cockpit checklist;
    (2) For multiengine aircraft or for aircraft with retractable 
landing gear, an emergency cockpit checklist containing the procedures 
required by paragraph (c) of this section, as appropriate;
    (3) At least one set of pertinent aeronautical charts; and
    (4) For IFR operations, at least one set of pertinent navigational 
en route, terminal area, and instrument approach procedure charts.
    (b) Each cockpit checklist required by paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section must contain the following procedures:
    (1) Before starting engines;
    (2) Before takeoff;
    (3) Cruise;
    (4) Before landing;
    (5) After landing; and
    (6) Stopping engines.
    (c) Each emergency cockpit checklist required by paragraph (a)(2) 
of this section must contain the following procedures, as appropriate:
    (1) Emergency operation of fuel, hydraulic, electrical, and 
mechanical systems.
    (2) Emergency operation of instruments and controls.
    (3) Engine inoperative procedures.
    (4) Any other emergency procedures necessary for safety.


Sec.  91.1035  Passenger awareness.

    (a) Prior to each takeoff, the pilot in command of an aircraft 
carrying passengers on a program flight must ensure that all passengers 
have been orally briefed on--
    (1) Smoking: Each passenger must be briefed on when, where, and 
under what conditions smoking is prohibited. This briefing must include 
a statement, as appropriate, that the regulations require passenger 
compliance with lighted passenger information signs and no smoking 
placards, prohibit smoking in lavatories, and require compliance with 
crewmember instructions with regard to these items;
    (2) Use of safety belts, shoulder harnesses, and child restraint 
systems: Each passenger must be briefed on when, where and under what 
conditions it is necessary to have his or her safety belt and, if 
installed, his or her shoulder harness fastened about him or her, and 
if a child is being transported, the appropriate use of child restraint 
systems, if available. This briefing must include a statement, as 
appropriate, that the regulations require passenger compliance with the 
lighted passenger information sign and/or crewmember instructions with 
regard to these items;
    (3) The placement of seat backs in an upright position before 
takeoff and landing;
    (4) Location and means for opening the passenger entry door and 
emergency exits;
    (5) Location of survival equipment;
    (6) Ditching procedures and the use of flotation equipment required 
under Sec.  91.509 for a flight over water;

[[Page 54568]]

    (7) The normal and emergency use of oxygen installed in the 
aircraft; and
    (8) Location and operation of fire extinguishers.
    (b) Prior to each takeoff, the pilot in command of an aircraft 
carrying passengers on a program flight must ensure that each person 
who may need the assistance of another person to move expeditiously to 
an exit if an emergency occurs and that person's attendant, if any, has 
received a briefing as to the procedures to be followed if an 
evacuation occurs. This paragraph does not apply to a person who has 
been given a briefing before a previous leg of that flight in the same 
aircraft.
    (c) Prior to each takeoff, the pilot in command must advise the 
passengers of the name of the entity in operational control of the 
flight.
    (d) The oral briefings required by paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of 
this section must be given by the pilot in command or another 
crewmember.
    (e) The oral briefing required by paragraph (a) of this section may 
be delivered by means of an approved recording playback device that is 
audible to each passenger under normal noise levels.
    (f) The oral briefing required by paragraph (a) of this section 
must be supplemented by printed cards that must be carried in the 
aircraft in locations convenient for the use of each passenger. The 
cards must--
    (1) Be appropriate for the aircraft on which they are to be used;
    (2) Contain a diagram of, and method of operating, the emergency 
exits; and
    (3) Contain other instructions necessary for the use of emergency 
equipment on board the aircraft.


Sec.  91.1037  Large transport category airplanes: Turbine engine 
powered; Limitations; Destination and alternate airports.

    (a) No program manager or any other person may permit a turbine 
engine powered large transport category airplane on a program flight to 
take off that airplane at a weight that (allowing for normal 
consumption of fuel and oil in flight to the destination or alternate 
airport) the weight of the airplane on arrival would exceed the landing 
weight in the Airplane Flight Manual for the elevation of the 
destination or alternate airport and the ambient temperature expected 
at the time of landing.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no program 
manager or any other person may permit a turbine engine powered large 
transport category airplane on a program flight to take off that 
airplane unless its weight on arrival, allowing for normal consumption 
of fuel and oil in flight (in accordance with the landing distance in 
the Airplane Flight Manual for the elevation of the destination airport 
and the wind conditions expected there at the time of landing), would 
allow a full stop landing at the intended destination airport within 60 
percent of the effective length of each runway described below from a 
point 50 feet above the intersection of the obstruction clearance plane 
and the runway. For the purpose of determining the allowable landing 
weight at the destination airport, the following is assumed:
    (1) The airplane is landed on the most favorable runway and in the 
most favorable direction, in still air.
    (2) The airplane is landed on the most suitable runway considering 
the probable wind velocity and direction and the ground handling 
characteristics of that airplane, and considering other conditions such 
as landing aids and terrain.
    (c) A program manager or other person flying a turbine engine 
powered large transport category airplane on a program flight may 
permit that airplane to take off at a weight in excess of that allowed 
by paragraph (b) of this section if all of the following conditions 
exist:
    (1) The operation is conducted in accordance with an approved 
Destination Airport Analysis in that person's program operating manual 
that contains the elements listed in Sec.  91.1025(o).
    (2) The airplane's weight on arrival, allowing for normal 
consumption of fuel and oil in flight (in accordance with the landing 
distance in the Airplane Flight Manual for the elevation of the 
destination airport and the wind conditions expected there at the time 
of landing), would allow a full stop landing at the intended 
destination airport within 80 percent of the effective length of each 
runway described below from a point 50 feet above the intersection of 
the obstruction clearance plane and the runway. For the purpose of 
determining the allowable landing weight at the destination airport, 
the following is assumed:
    (i) The airplane is landed on the most favorable runway and in the 
most favorable direction, in still air.
    (ii) The airplane is landed on the most suitable runway considering 
the probable wind velocity and direction and the ground handling 
characteristics of that airplane, and considering other conditions such 
as landing aids and terrain.
    (3) The operation is authorized by management specifications.
    (d) No program manager or other person may select an airport as an 
alternate airport for a turbine engine powered large transport category 
airplane unless (based on the assumptions in paragraph (b) of this 
section) that airplane, at the weight expected at the time of arrival, 
can be brought to a full stop landing within 80 percent of the 
effective length of the runway from a point 50 feet above the 
intersection of the obstruction clearance plane and the runway.
    (e) Unless, based on a showing of actual operating landing 
techniques on wet runways, a shorter landing distance (but never less 
than that required by paragraph (b) or (c) of this section) has been 
approved for a specific type and model airplane and included in the 
Airplane Flight Manual, no person may take off a turbojet airplane when 
the appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of 
them, indicate that the runways at the destination or alternate airport 
may be wet or slippery at the estimated time of arrival unless the 
effective runway length at the destination airport is at least 115 
percent of the runway length required under paragraph (b) or (c) of 
this section.


Sec.  91.1039  IFR takeoff, approach and landing minimums.

    (a) No pilot on a program aircraft operating a program flight may 
begin an instrument approach procedure to an airport unless--
    (1) Either that airport or the alternate airport has a weather 
reporting facility operated by the U.S. National Weather Service, a 
source approved by the U.S. National Weather Service, or a source 
approved by the Administrator; and
    (2) The latest weather report issued by the weather reporting 
facility includes a current local altimeter setting for the destination 
airport. If no local altimeter setting is available at the destination 
airport, the pilot must obtain the current local altimeter setting from 
a source provided by the facility designated on the approach chart for 
the destination airport.
    (b) For flight planning purposes, if the destination airport does 
not have a weather reporting facility described in paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section, the pilot must designate as an alternate an airport that 
has a weather reporting facility meeting that criteria.
    (c) The MDA or Decision Altitude and visibility landing minimums 
prescribed in part 97 of this chapter or in the program manager's 
management specifications are increased by 100 feet and 1/2 mile 
respectively, but not to exceed the ceiling and visibility minimums for 
that airport when used as an alternate airport, for each pilot in

[[Page 54569]]

command of a turbine-powered aircraft who has not served at least 100 
hours as pilot in command in that type of aircraft.
    (d) No person may take off an aircraft under IFR from an airport 
where weather conditions are at or above takeoff minimums but are below 
authorized IFR landing minimums unless there is an alternate airport 
within one hour's flying time (at normal cruising speed, in still air) 
of the airport of departure.
    (e) Each pilot making an IFR takeoff or approach and landing at an 
airport must comply with applicable instrument approach procedures and 
take off and landing weather minimums prescribed by the authority 
having jurisdiction over the airport. In addition, no pilot may, at 
that airport take off when the visibility is less than 600 feet.


Sec.  91.1041  Aircraft proving and validation tests.

    (a) No program manager may permit the operation of an aircraft, 
other than a turbojet aircraft, for which two pilots are required by 
the type certification requirements of this chapter for operations 
under VFR, if it has not previously proved such an aircraft in 
operations under this part in at least 25 hours of proving tests 
acceptable to the Administrator including--
    (1) Five hours of night time, if night flights are to be 
authorized;
    (2) Five instrument approach procedures under simulated or actual 
conditions, if IFR flights are to be authorized; and
    (3) Entry into a representative number of en route airports as 
determined by the Administrator.
    (b) No program manager may permit the operation of a turbojet 
airplane if it has not previously proved a turbojet airplane in 
operations under this part in at least 25 hours of proving tests 
acceptable to the Administrator including--
    (1) Five hours of night time, if night flights are to be 
authorized;
    (2) Five instrument approach procedures under simulated or actual 
conditions, if IFR flights are to be authorized; and
    (3) Entry into a representative number of en route airports as 
determined by the Administrator.
    (c) No program manager may carry passengers in an aircraft during 
proving tests, except those needed to make the tests and those 
designated by the Administrator to observe the tests. However, pilot 
flight training may be conducted during the proving tests.
    (d) Validation testing is required to determine that a program 
manager is capable of conducting operations safely and in compliance 
with applicable regulatory standards. Validation tests are required for 
the following authorizations:
    (1) The addition of an aircraft for which two pilots are required 
for operations under VFR or a turbojet airplane, if that aircraft or an 
aircraft of the same make or similar design has not been previously 
proved or validated in operations under this part.
    (2) Operations outside U.S. airspace.
    (3) Class II navigation authorizations.
    (4) Special performance or operational authorizations.
    (e) Validation tests must be accomplished by test methods 
acceptable to the Administrator. Actual flights may not be required 
when an applicant can demonstrate competence and compliance with 
appropriate regulations without conducting a flight.
    (f) Proving tests and validation tests may be conducted 
simultaneously when appropriate.
    (g) The Administrator may authorize deviations from this section if 
the Administrator finds that special circumstances make full compliance 
with this section unnecessary.


Sec.  91.1043  [Reserved]


Sec.  91.1045  Additional equipment requirements.

    No person may operate a program aircraft on a program flight unless 
the aircraft is equipped with the following--
    (a) Airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of more than 30 
seats or a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds:
    (1) A cockpit voice recorder as required by Sec.  121.359 of this 
chapter as applicable to the aircraft specified in that section.
    (2) A flight recorder as required by Sec.  121.343 or Sec.  121.344 
of this chapter as applicable to the aircraft specified in that 
section.
    (3) A terrain awareness and warning system as required by Sec.  
121.354 of this chapter as applicable to the aircraft specified in that 
section.
    (4) A traffic alert and collision avoidance system as required by 
Sec.  121.356 of this chapter as applicable to the aircraft specified 
in that section.
    (5) Airborne weather radar as required by Sec.  121.357 of this 
chapter, as applicable to the aircraft specified in that section.
    (b) Airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 30 seats or 
fewer, excluding each crewmember, and a payload capacity of 7,500 
pounds or less, and any rotorcraft (as applicable):
    (1) A cockpit voice recorder as required by Sec.  135.151 of this 
chapter as applicable to the aircraft specified in that section.
    (2) A flight recorder as required by Sec.  135.152 of this chapter 
as applicable to the aircraft specified in that section.
    (3) A terrain awareness and warning system as required by Sec.  
135.154 of this chapter as applicable to the aircraft specified in that 
section.
    (4) A traffic alert and collision avoidance system as required by 
Sec.  135.180 of this chapter as applicable to the aircraft specified 
in that section.
    (5) As applicable to the aircraft specified in that section, 
either:
    (i) Airborne thunderstorm detection equipment as required by Sec.  
135.173 of this chapter; or
    (ii) Airborne weather radar as required by Sec.  135.175 of this 
chapter.


Sec.  91.1047  Drug and alcohol misuse education program.

    (a) Each program manager must provide each direct employee 
performing flight crewmember, flight attendant, flight instructor, or 
aircraft maintenance duties with drug and alcohol misuse education.
    (b) No program manager may use any contract employee to perform 
flight crewmember, flight attendant, flight instructor, or aircraft 
maintenance duties for the program manager unless that contract 
employee has been provided with drug and alcohol misuse education.
    (c) Program managers must disclose to their owners and prospective 
owners the existence of a company drug and alcohol misuse testing 
program. If the program manager has implemented a company testing 
program, the program manager's disclosure must include the following:
    (1) Information on the substances that they test for, for example, 
alcohol and a list of the drugs;
    (2) The categories of employees tested, the types of tests, for 
example, pre-employment, random, reasonable cause/suspicion, post 
accident, return to duty and follow-up; and
    (3) The degree to which the program manager's company testing 
program is comparable to the federally mandated drug and alcohol misuse 
prevention program required under part 121, appendices I and J, of this 
chapter, regarding the information in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of 
this section.
    (d) If a program aircraft is operated on a program flight into an 
airport at which no maintenance personnel are available that are 
subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section 
and emergency maintenance is required, the

[[Page 54570]]

program manager may use persons not meeting the requirements of 
paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section to provide such emergency 
maintenance under both of the following conditions:
    (1) The program manager must notify the Drug Abatement Program 
Division, AAM-800, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591 
in writing within 10 days after being provided emergency maintenance in 
accordance with this paragraph. The program manager must retain copies 
of all such written notifications for two years.
    (2) The aircraft must be reinspected by maintenance personnel who 
meet the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section when the 
aircraft is next at an airport where such maintenance personnel are 
available.
    (e) For purposes of this section, emergency maintenance means 
maintenance that--
    (1) Is not scheduled, and
    (2) Is made necessary by an aircraft condition not discovered prior 
to the departure for that location.
    (f) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, drug 
and alcohol misuse education conducted under an FAA-approved drug and 
alcohol misuse prevention program may be used to satisfy these 
requirements.


Sec.  91.1049  Personnel.

    (a) Each program manager and each fractional owner must use in 
program operations on program aircraft flight crews meeting Sec.  
91.1053 criteria and qualified under the appropriate regulations. The 
program manager must provide oversight of those crews.
    (b) Each program manager must employ (either directly or by 
contract) an adequate number of pilots per program aircraft. Flight 
crew staffing must be determined based on the following factors, at a 
minimum:
    (1) Number of program aircraft.
    (2) Program manager flight, duty, and rest time considerations, and 
in all cases within the limits set forth in Sec. Sec.  91.1057 through 
91.1061.
    (3) Vacations.
    (4) Operational efficiencies.
    (5) Training.
    (6) Single pilot operations, if authorized by deviation under 
paragraph (d) of this section.
    (c) Each program manager must publish pilot and flight attendant 
duty schedules sufficiently in advance to follow the flight, duty, and 
rest time limits in Sec. Sec.  91.1057 through 91.1061 in program 
operations.
    (d) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, when any 
program aircraft is flown in program operations with passengers 
onboard, the crew must consist of at least two qualified pilots 
employed or contracted by the program manager or the fractional owner.
    (e) The program manager must ensure that trained and qualified 
scheduling or flight release personnel are on duty to schedule and 
release program aircraft during all hours that such aircraft are 
available for program operations.


Sec.  91.1051  Pilot safety background check.

    Within 90 days of an individual beginning service as a pilot, the 
program manager must request the following information:
    (a) FAA records pertaining to--
    (1) Current pilot certificates and associated type ratings.
    (2) Current medical certificates.
    (3) Summaries of legal enforcement actions resulting in a finding 
by the Administrator of a violation.
    (b) Records from all previous employers during the five years 
preceding the date of the employment application where the applicant 
worked as a pilot. If any of these firms are in bankruptcy, the records 
must be requested from the trustees in bankruptcy for those employees. 
If the previous employer is no longer in business, a documented good 
faith effort must be made to obtain the records. Records from previous 
employers must include, as applicable--
    (1) Crew member records.
    (2) Drug testing--collection, testing, and rehabilitation records 
pertaining to the individual.
    (3) Alcohol misuse prevention program records pertaining to the 
individual.
    (4) The applicant's individual record that includes certifications, 
ratings, aeronautical experience, effective date and class of the 
medical certificate.


Sec.  91.1053   Crewmember experience.

    (a) No program manager or owner may use any person, nor may any 
person serve, as a pilot in command or second in command of a program 
aircraft, or as a flight attendant on a program aircraft, in program 
operations under this subpart unless that person has met the applicable 
requirements of part 61 of this chapter and has the following 
experience and ratings:
    (1) Total flight time for all pilots:
    (i) Pilot in command--A minimum of 1,500 hours.
    (ii) Second in command--A minimum of 500 hours.
    (2) For multi-engine turbine-powered fixed-wing and powered-lift 
aircraft, the following FAA certification and ratings requirements:
    (i) Pilot in command--Airline transport pilot and applicable type 
ratings.
    (ii) Second in command--Commercial pilot and instrument ratings.
    (iii) Flight attendant (if required or used)--Appropriately trained 
personnel.
    (3) For all other aircraft, the following FAA certification and 
rating requirements:
    (i) Pilot in command--Commercial pilot and instrument ratings.
    (ii) Second in command--Commercial pilot and instrument ratings.
    (iii) Flight attendant (if required or used)--Appropriately trained 
personnel.
    (b) The Administrator may authorize deviations from paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section if the Flight Standards District Office that 
issued the program manager's management specifications finds that the 
crewmember has comparable experience, and can effectively perform the 
functions associated with the position in accordance with the 
requirements of this chapter. Grants of deviation under this paragraph 
may be granted after consideration of the size and scope of the 
operation, the qualifications of the intended personnel and the 
circumstances set forth in Sec.  91.1055(b)(1) through (3). The 
Administrator may, at any time, terminate any grant of deviation 
authority issued under this paragraph.


Sec.  91.1055  Pilot operating limitations and pairing requirement.

    (a) If the second in command of a fixed-wing program aircraft has 
fewer than 100 hours of flight time as second in command flying in the 
aircraft make and model and, if a type rating is required, in the type 
aircraft being flown, and the pilot in command is not an appropriately 
qualified check pilot, the pilot in command shall make all takeoffs and 
landings in any of the following situations:
    (1) Landings at the destination airport when a Destination Airport 
Analysis is required by Sec.  91.1037(c); and
    (2) In any of the following conditions:
    (i) The prevailing visibility for the airport is at or below 3/4 
mile.
    (ii) The runway visual range for the runway to be used is at or 
below 4,000 feet.
    (iii) The runway to be used has water, snow, slush, ice or similar 
contamination that may adversely affect aircraft performance.
    (iv) The braking action on the runway to be used is reported to be 
less than ``good.''
    (v) The crosswind component for the runway to be used is in excess 
of 15 knots.
    (vi) Windshear is reported in the vicinity of the airport.
    (vii) Any other condition in which the pilot in command determines 
it to be

[[Page 54571]]

prudent to exercise the pilot in command's authority.
    (b) No program manager may release a program flight under this 
subpart unless, for that aircraft make or model and, if a type rating 
is required, for that type aircraft, either the pilot in command or the 
second in command has at least 75 hours of flight time, either as pilot 
in command or second in command. The Administrator may, upon 
application by the program manager, authorize deviations from the 
requirements of this paragraph by an appropriate amendment to the 
management specifications in any of the following circumstances:
    (1) A newly authorized program manager does not employ any pilots 
who meet the minimum requirements of this paragraph.
    (2) An existing program manager adds to its fleet a new category 
and class aircraft not used before in its operation.
    (3) An existing program manager establishes a new base to which it 
assigns pilots who will be required to become qualified on the aircraft 
operated from that base.
    (c) No person may be assigned in the capacity of pilot in command 
in a program operation to more than two aircraft types that require a 
separate type rating.


Sec.  91.1057  Flight, duty and rest time requirements: All 
crewmembers.

    (a) For purposes of this subpart--
    Augmented flight crew means at least three pilots.
    Calendar day means the period of elapsed time, using Coordinated 
Universal Time or local time that begins at midnight and ends 24 hours 
later at the next midnight.
    Duty period means the period of elapsed time between reporting for 
an assignment involving flight time and release from that assignment by 
the program manager. All time between these two points is part of the 
duty period, even if flight time is interrupted by nonflight-related 
duties. The time is calculated using either Coordinated Universal Time 
or local time to reflect the total elapsed time.
    Extension of flight time means an increase in the flight time 
because of circumstances beyond the control of the program manager or 
flight crewmember (such as adverse weather) that are not known at the 
time of departure and that prevent the flightcrew from reaching the 
destination within the planned flight time.
    Flight attendant means an individual, other than a flight 
crewmember, who is assigned by the program manager, in accordance with 
the required minimum crew complement under the program manager's 
management specifications or in addition to that minimum complement, to 
duty in an aircraft during flight time and whose duties include but are 
not necessarily limited to cabin-safety-related responsibilities.
    Multi-time zone flight means an easterly or westerly flight or 
multiple flights in one direction in the same duty period that results 
in a time zone difference of 5 or more hours and is conducted in a 
geographic area that is south of 60 degrees north latitude and north of 
60 degrees south latitude.
    Reserve status means that status in which a flight crewmember, by 
arrangement with the program manager: Holds himself or herself fit to 
fly to the extent that this is within the control of the flight 
crewmember; remains within a reasonable response time of the aircraft 
as agreed between the flight crewmember and the program manager; and 
maintains a ready means whereby the flight crewmember may be contacted 
by the program manager. Reserve status is not part of any duty period 
or rest period.
    Rest period means a period of time required pursuant to this 
subpart that is free of all responsibility for work or duty prior to 
the commencement of, or following completion of, a duty period, and 
during which the flight crewmember or flight attendant cannot be 
required to receive contact from the program manager. A rest period 
does not include any time during which the program manager imposes on a 
flight crewmember or flight attendant any duty or restraint, including 
any actual work or present responsibility for work should the occasion 
arise.
    Standby means that portion of a duty period during which a flight 
crewmember is subject to the control of the program manager and holds 
himself or herself in a condition of readiness to undertake a flight. 
Standby is not part of any rest period.
    (b) A program manager may assign a crewmember and a crewmember may 
accept an assignment for flight time only when the applicable 
requirements of this section and Sec. Sec.  91.1059-91.1062 are met.
    (c) No program manager may assign any crewmember to any duty during 
any required rest period.
    (d) Time spent in transportation, not local in character, that a 
program manager requires of a crewmember and provides to transport the 
crewmember to an airport at which he or she is to serve on a flight as 
a crewmember, or from an airport at which he or she was relieved from 
duty to return to his or her home station, is not considered part of a 
rest period.
    (e) A flight crewmember may continue a flight assignment if the 
flight to which he or she is assigned would normally terminate within 
the flight time limitations, but because of circumstances beyond the 
control of the program manager or flight crewmember (such as adverse 
weather conditions), is not at the time of departure expected to reach 
its destination within the planned flight time. The extension of flight 
time under this paragraph may not exceed the maximum time limits set 
forth in Sec.  91.1059.
    (f) Each flight assignment must provide for at least 10 consecutive 
hours of rest during the 24-hour period that precedes the completion 
time of the assignment.
    (g) The program manager must provide each crewmember at least 13 
rest periods of at least 24 consecutive hours each in each calendar 
quarter.
    (h) A flight crewmember may decline a flight assignment if, in the 
flight crewmember's determination, to do so would not be consistent 
with the standard of safe operation required under this subpart, this 
part, and applicable provisions of this title.
    (i) Any rest period required by this subpart may occur concurrently 
with any other rest period.
    (j) If authorized by the Administrator, a program manager may use 
the applicable unscheduled flight time limitations, duty period 
limitations, and rest requirements of part 121 or part 135 of this 
chapter instead of the flight time limitations, duty period 
limitations, and rest requirements of this subpart.


Sec.  91.1059  Flight time limitations and rest requirements: One or 
two pilot crews.

    (a) No program manager may assign any flight crewmember, and no 
flight crewmember may accept an assignment, for flight time as a member 
of a one- or two-pilot crew if that crewmember's total flight time in 
all commercial flying will exceed--
    (1) 500 hours in any calendar quarter;
    (2) 800 hours in any two consecutive calendar quarters;
    (3) 1,400 hours in any calendar year.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, during any 
24 consecutive hours the total flight time of the assigned flight, when 
added to any commercial flying by that flight crewmember, may not 
exceed--
    (1) 8 hours for a flight crew consisting of one pilot; or
    (2) 10 hours for a flight crew consisting of two pilots qualified 
under this subpart for the operation being conducted.

[[Page 54572]]

    (c) No program manager may assign any flight crewmember, and no 
flight crewmember may accept an assignment, if that crewmember's flight 
time or duty period will exceed, or rest time will be less than--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Normal duty                    Extension of flight time
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Minimum Rest Immediately Before     10 Hours...........................  10 Hours.
 Duty.
(2) Duty Period.......................  Up to 14 Hours.....................  Up to 14 Hours.
(3) Flight Time For 1 Pilot...........  Up to 8 Hours......................  Exceeding 8 Hours up to 9 Hours.
(4) Flight Time For 2 Pilots..........  Up to 10 Hours.....................  Exceeding 10 Hours up to 12 Hours.
(5) Minimum After Duty Rest...........  10 Hours...........................  12 Hours.
(6) Minimum After Duty Rest Period for  14 Hours...........................  18 Hours.
 Multi-Time Zone Flights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  91.1061  Augmented flight crews.

    (a) No program manager may assign any flight crewmember, and no 
flight crewmember may accept an assignment, for flight time as a member 
of an augmented crew if that crewmember's total flight time in all 
commercial flying will exceed--
    (1) 500 hours in any calendar quarter;
    (2) 800 hours in any two consecutive calendar quarters;
    (3) 1,400 hours in any calendar year.
    (b) No program manager may assign any pilot to an augmented crew, 
unless the program manager ensures:
    (1) Adequate sleeping facilities are installed on the aircraft for 
the pilots.
    (2) No more than 8 hours of flight deck duty is accrued in any 24 
consecutive hours.
    (3) For a three-pilot crew, the crew must consist of at least the 
following:
    (i) A pilot in command (PIC) who meets the applicable flight 
crewmember requirements of this subpart and Sec.  61.57 of this 
chapter.
    (ii) A PIC qualified pilot who meets the applicable flight 
crewmember requirements of this subpart and Sec.  61.57(c) and (d) of 
this chapter.
    (iii) A second in command (SIC) who meets the SIC qualifications of 
this subpart. For flight under IFR, that person must also meet the 
recent instrument experience requirements of part 61 of this chapter.
    (4) For a four-pilot crew, at least three pilots who meet the 
conditions of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, plus a fourth pilot who 
meets the SIC qualifications of this subpart. For flight under IFR, 
that person must also meet the recent instrument experience 
requirements of part 61 of this chapter.
    (c) No program manager may assign any flight crewmember, and no 
flight crewmember may accept an assignment, if that crewmember's flight 
time or duty period will exceed, or rest time will be less than--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    3-Pilot crew                         4-Pilot crew
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Minimum Rest Immediately Before     10 Hours...........................  10 Hours
 Duty.
(2) Duty Period.......................  Up to 16 Hours.....................  Up to 18 Hours
(3) Flight Time.......................  Up to 12 Hours.....................  Up to 16 Hours
(4) Minimum After Duty Rest...........  12 Hours...........................  18 Hours
(5) Minimum After Duty Rest Period for  18 hours...........................  24 hours
 Multi-Time Zone Flights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  91.1062  Duty periods and rest requirements: Flight attendants.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a program 
manager may assign a duty period to a flight attendant only when the 
assignment meets the applicable duty period limitations and rest 
requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) of 
this section, no program manager may assign a flight attendant to a 
scheduled duty period of more than 14 hours.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, a 
flight attendant scheduled to a duty period of 14 hours or less as 
provided under paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be given a 
scheduled rest period of at least 9 consecutive hours. This rest period 
must occur between the completion of the scheduled duty period and the 
commencement of the subsequent duty period.
    (3) The rest period required under paragraph (a)(2) of this section 
may be scheduled or reduced to 8 consecutive hours if the flight 
attendant is provided a subsequent rest period of at least 10 
consecutive hours; this subsequent rest period must be scheduled to 
begin no later than 24 hours after the beginning of the reduced rest 
period and must occur between the completion of the scheduled duty 
period and the commencement of the subsequent duty period.
    (4) A program manager may assign a flight attendant to a scheduled 
duty period of more than 14 hours, but no more than 16 hours, if the 
program manager has assigned to the flight or flights in that duty 
period at least one flight attendant in addition to the minimum flight 
attendant complement required for the flight or flights in that duty 
period under the program manager's management specifications.
    (5) A program manager may assign a flight attendant to a scheduled 
duty period of more than 16 hours, but no more than 18 hours, if the 
program manager has assigned to the flight or flights in that duty 
period at least two flight attendants in addition to the minimum flight 
attendant complement required for the flight or flights in that duty 
period under the program manager's management specifications.
    (6) A program manager may assign a flight attendant to a scheduled 
duty period of more than 18 hours, but no more than 20 hours, if the 
scheduled duty period includes one or more flights that land or take 
off outside the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia, and 
if the program manager has assigned to the flight or flights in that 
duty period at least three flight attendants in addition to the minimum 
flight attendant complement required for the flight or flights in that 
duty period under the program manager's management specifications.
    (7) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(8) of this section, a 
flight attendant scheduled to a duty period of more than 14 hours but 
no more than 20 hours, as provided in paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), and 
(a)(6) of this section, must be given a

[[Page 54573]]

scheduled rest period of at least 12 consecutive hours. This rest 
period must occur between the completion of the scheduled duty period 
and the commencement of the subsequent duty period.
    (8) The rest period required under paragraph (a)(7) of this section 
may be scheduled or reduced to 10 consecutive hours if the flight 
attendant is provided a subsequent rest period of at least 14 
consecutive hours; this subsequent rest period must be scheduled to 
begin no later than 24 hours after the beginning of the reduced rest 
period and must occur between the completion of the scheduled duty 
period and the commencement of the subsequent duty period.
    (9) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) of this 
section, if a program manager elects to reduce the rest period to 10 
hours as authorized by paragraph (a)(8) of this section, the program 
manager may not schedule a flight attendant for a duty period of more 
than 14 hours during the 24-hour period commencing after the beginning 
of the reduced rest period.
    (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a program 
manager may apply the flight crewmember flight time and duty 
limitations and rest requirements of this part to flight attendants for 
all operations conducted under this part provided that the program 
manager establishes written procedures that--
    (1) Apply to all flight attendants used in the program manager's 
operation;
    (2) Include the flight crewmember rest and duty requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  91.1057, 91.1059, and 91.1061, as appropriate to the 
operation being conducted, except that rest facilities on board the 
aircraft are not required;
    (3) Include provisions to add one flight attendant to the minimum 
flight attendant complement for each flight crewmember who is in excess 
of the minimum number required in the aircraft type certificate data 
sheet and who is assigned to the aircraft under the provisions of Sec.  
91.1061; and
    (4) Are approved by the Administrator and described or referenced 
in the program manager's management specifications.


Sec.  91.1063  Testing and training: Applicability and terms used.

    (a) Sections 91.1065 through 91.1107:
    (1) Prescribe the tests and checks required for pilots and flight 
attendant crewmembers and for the approval of check pilots in 
operations under this subpart;
    (2) Prescribe the requirements for establishing and maintaining an 
approved training program for crewmembers, check pilots and 
instructors, and other operations personnel employed or used by the 
program manager in program operations;
    (3) Prescribe the requirements for the qualification, approval and 
use of aircraft simulators and flight training devices in the conduct 
of an approved training program; and
    (4) Permits training center personnel authorized under part 142 of 
this chapter who meet the requirements of Sec.  91.1075 to conduct 
training, testing and checking under contract or other arrangements to 
those persons subject to the requirements of this subpart.
    (b) If authorized by the Administrator, a program manager may 
comply with the applicable training and testing sections of subparts N 
and O of part 121 of this chapter instead of Sec. Sec.  91.1065 through 
91.1107, except for the operating experience requirements of Sec.  
121.434 of this chapter.
    (c) If authorized by the Administrator, a program manager may 
comply with the applicable training and testing sections of subparts G 
and H of part 135 of this chapter instead of Sec. Sec.  91.1065 through 
91.1107, except for the operating experience requirements of Sec.  
135.244 of this chapter.
    (d) For the purposes of this subpart, the following terms and 
definitions apply:
    (1) Initial training. The training required for crewmembers who 
have not qualified and served in the same capacity on an aircraft.
    (2) Transition training. The training required for crewmembers who 
have qualified and served in the same capacity on another aircraft.
    (3) Upgrade training. The training required for crewmembers who 
have qualified and served as second in command on a particular aircraft 
type, before they serve as pilot in command on that aircraft.
    (4) Differences training. The training required for crewmembers who 
have qualified and served on a particular type aircraft, when the 
Administrator finds differences training is necessary before a 
crewmember serves in the same capacity on a particular variation of 
that aircraft.
    (5) Recurrent training. The training required for crewmembers to 
remain adequately trained and currently proficient for each aircraft 
crewmember position, and type of operation in which the crewmember 
serves.
    (6) In flight. The maneuvers, procedures, or functions that will be 
conducted in the aircraft.
    (7) Training center. An organization governed by the applicable 
requirements of part 142 of this chapter that conducts training, 
testing, and checking under contract or other arrangement to program 
managers subject to the requirements of this subpart.
    (8) Requalification training. The training required for crewmembers 
previously trained and qualified, but who have become unqualified 
because of not having met within the required period any of the 
following:
    (i) Recurrent crewmember training requirements of Sec.  91.1107.
    (ii) Instrument proficiency check requirements of Sec.  91.1069.
    (iii) Testing requirements of Sec.  91.1065.
    (iv) Recurrent flight attendant testing requirements of Sec.  
91.1067.


Sec.  91.1065  Initial and recurrent pilot testing requirements.

    (a) No program manager or owner may use a pilot, nor may any person 
serve as a pilot, unless, since the beginning of the 12th month before 
that service, that pilot has passed either a written or oral test (or a 
combination), given by the Administrator or an authorized check pilot, 
on that pilot's knowledge in the following areas--
    (1) The appropriate provisions of parts 61 and 91 of this chapter 
and the management specifications and the operating manual of the 
program manager;
    (2) For each type of aircraft to be flown by the pilot, the 
aircraft powerplant, major components and systems, major appliances, 
performance and operating limitations, standard and emergency operating 
procedures, and the contents of the accepted operating manual or 
equivalent, as applicable;
    (3) For each type of aircraft to be flown by the pilot, the method 
of determining compliance with weight and balance limitations for 
takeoff, landing and en route operations;
    (4) Navigation and use of air navigation aids appropriate to the 
operation or pilot authorization, including, when applicable, 
instrument approach facilities and procedures;
    (5) Air traffic control procedures, including IFR procedures when 
applicable;
    (6) Meteorology in general, including the principles of frontal 
systems, icing, fog, thunderstorms, and windshear, and, if appropriate 
for the operation of the program manager, high altitude weather;
    (7) Procedures for--
    (i) Recognizing and avoiding severe weather situations;
    (ii) Escaping from severe weather situations, in case of 
inadvertent

[[Page 54574]]

encounters, including low-altitude windshear (except that rotorcraft 
aircraft pilots are not required to be tested on escaping from low-
altitude windshear); and
    (iii) Operating in or near thunderstorms (including best 
penetration altitudes), turbulent air (including clear air turbulence), 
icing, hail, and other potentially hazardous meteorological conditions; 
and
    (8) New equipment, procedures, or techniques, as appropriate.
    (b) No program manager or owner may use a pilot, nor may any person 
serve as a pilot, in any aircraft unless, since the beginning of the 
12th month before that service, that pilot has passed a competency 
check given by the Administrator or an authorized check pilot in that 
class of aircraft, if single-engine aircraft other than turbojet, or 
that type of aircraft, if rotorcraft, multiengine aircraft, or turbojet 
airplane, to determine the pilot's competence in practical skills and 
techniques in that aircraft or class of aircraft. The extent of the 
competency check will be determined by the Administrator or authorized 
check pilot conducting the competency check. The competency check may 
include any of the maneuvers and procedures currently required for the 
original issuance of the particular pilot certificate required for the 
operations authorized and appropriate to the category, class and type 
of aircraft involved. For the purposes of this paragraph, type, as to 
an airplane, means any one of a group of airplanes determined by the 
Administrator to have a similar means of propulsion, the same 
manufacturer, and no significantly different handling or flight 
characteristics. For the purposes of this paragraph, type, as to a 
rotorcraft, means a basic make and model.
    (c) The instrument proficiency check required by Sec.  91.1069 may 
be substituted for the competency check required by this section for 
the type of aircraft used in the check.
    (d) For the purpose of this subpart, competent performance of a 
procedure or maneuver by a person to be used as a pilot requires that 
the pilot be the obvious master of the aircraft, with the successful 
outcome of the maneuver never in doubt.
    (e) The Administrator or authorized check pilot certifies the 
competency of each pilot who passes the knowledge or flight check in 
the program manager's pilot records.
    (f) All or portions of a required competency check may be given in 
an aircraft simulator or other appropriate training device, if approved 
by the Administrator.


Sec.  91.1067  Initial and recurrent flight attendant crewmember 
testing requirements.

    No program manager or owner may use a flight attendant crewmember, 
nor may any person serve as a flight attendant crewmember unless, since 
the beginning of the 12th month before that service, the program 
manager has determined by appropriate initial and recurrent testing 
that the person is knowledgeable and competent in the following areas 
as appropriate to assigned duties and responsibilities--
    (a) Authority of the pilot in command;
    (b) Passenger handling, including procedures to be followed in 
handling deranged persons or other persons whose conduct might 
jeopardize safety;
    (c) Crewmember assignments, functions, and responsibilities during 
ditching and evacuation of persons who may need the assistance of 
another person to move expeditiously to an exit in an emergency;
    (d) Briefing of passengers;
    (e) Location and operation of portable fire extinguishers and other 
items of emergency equipment;
    (f) Proper use of cabin equipment and controls;
    (g) Location and operation of passenger oxygen equipment;
    (h) Location and operation of all normal and emergency exits, 
including evacuation slides and escape ropes; and
    (i) Seating of persons who may need assistance of another person to 
move rapidly to an exit in an emergency as prescribed by the program 
manager's operations manual.


Sec.  91.1069  Flight crew: Instrument proficiency check requirements.

    (a) No program manager or owner may use a pilot, nor may any person 
serve, as a pilot in command of an aircraft under IFR unless, since the 
beginning of the 6th month before that service, that pilot has passed 
an instrument proficiency check under this section administered by the 
Administrator or an authorized check pilot.
    (b) No program manager or owner may use a pilot, nor may any person 
serve, as a second command pilot of an aircraft under IFR unless, since 
the beginning of the 12th month before that service, that pilot has 
passed an instrument proficiency check under this section administered 
by the Administrator or an authorized check pilot.
    (c) No pilot may use any type of precision instrument approach 
procedure under IFR unless, since the beginning of the 6th month before 
that use, the pilot satisfactorily demonstrated that type of approach 
procedure. No pilot may use any type of nonprecision approach procedure 
under IFR unless, since the beginning of the 6th month before that use, 
the pilot has satisfactorily demonstrated either that type of approach 
procedure or any other two different types of nonprecision approach 
procedures. The instrument approach procedure or procedures must 
include at least one straight-in approach, one circling approach, and 
one missed approach. Each type of approach procedure demonstrated must 
be conducted to published minimums for that procedure.
    (d) The instrument proficiency checks required by paragraphs (a) 
and (b) of this section consists of either an oral or written equipment 
test (or a combination) and a flight check under simulated or actual 
IFR conditions. The equipment test includes questions on emergency 
procedures, engine operation, fuel and lubrication systems, power 
settings, stall speeds, best engine-out speed, propeller and 
supercharger operations, and hydraulic, mechanical, and electrical 
systems, as appropriate. The flight check includes navigation by 
instruments, recovery from simulated emergencies, and standard 
instrument approaches involving navigational facilities which that 
pilot is to be authorized to use.
    (e) Each pilot taking the instrument proficiency check must show 
that standard of competence required by Sec.  91.1065(d).
    (1) The instrument proficiency check must--
    (i) For a pilot in command of an aircraft requiring that the PIC 
hold an airline transport pilot certificate, include the procedures and 
maneuvers for an airline transport pilot certificate in the particular 
type of aircraft, if appropriate; and
    (ii) For a pilot in command of a rotorcraft or a second in command 
of any aircraft requiring that the SIC hold a commercial pilot 
certificate include the procedures and maneuvers for a commercial pilot 
certificate with an instrument rating and, if required, for the 
appropriate type rating.
    (2) The instrument proficiency check must be given by an authorized 
check pilot or by the Administrator.
    (f) If the pilot is assigned to pilot only one type of aircraft, 
that pilot must take the instrument proficiency check required by 
paragraph (a) of this section in that type of aircraft.
    (g) If the pilot in command is assigned to pilot more than one type 
of aircraft, that pilot must take the instrument

[[Page 54575]]

proficiency check required by paragraph (a) of this section in each 
type of aircraft to which that pilot is assigned, in rotation, but not 
more than one flight check during each period described in paragraph 
(a) of this section.
    (h) If the pilot in command is assigned to pilot both single-engine 
and multiengine aircraft, that pilot must initially take the instrument 
proficiency check required by paragraph (a) of this section in a 
multiengine aircraft, and each succeeding check alternately in single-
engine and multiengine aircraft, but not more than one flight check 
during each period described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (i) All or portions of a required flight check may be given in an 
aircraft simulator or other appropriate training device, if approved by 
the Administrator.


Sec.  91.1071  Crewmember: Tests and checks, grace provisions, training 
to accepted standards.

    (a) If a crewmember who is required to take a test or a flight 
check under this subpart, completes the test or flight check in the 
month before or after the month in which it is required, that 
crewmember is considered to have completed the test or check in the 
month in which it is required.
    (b) If a pilot being checked under this subpart fails any of the 
required maneuvers, the person giving the check may give additional 
training to the pilot during the course of the check. In addition to 
repeating the maneuvers failed, the person giving the check may require 
the pilot being checked to repeat any other maneuvers that are 
necessary to determine the pilot's proficiency. If the pilot being 
checked is unable to demonstrate satisfactory performance to the person 
conducting the check, the program manager may not use the pilot, nor 
may the pilot serve, as a flight crewmember in operations under this 
subpart until the pilot has satisfactorily completed the check. If a 
pilot who demonstrates unsatisfactory performance is employed as a 
pilot for a certificate holder operating under part 121, 125, or 135 of 
this chapter, he or she must notify that certificate holder of the 
unsatisfactory performance.


Sec.  91.1073  Training program: General.

    (a) Each program manager must have a training program and must:
    (1) Establish, obtain the appropriate initial and final approval 
of, and provide a training program that meets this subpart and that 
ensures that each crewmember, including each flight attendant if the 
program manager uses a flight attendant crewmember, flight instructor, 
check pilot, and each person assigned duties for the carriage and 
handling of hazardous materials (as defined in 49 CFR 171.8) is 
adequately trained to perform these assigned duties.
    (2) Provide adequate ground and flight training facilities and 
properly qualified ground instructors for the training required by this 
subpart.
    (3) Provide and keep current for each aircraft type used and, if 
applicable, the particular variations within the aircraft type, 
appropriate training material, examinations, forms, instructions, and 
procedures for use in conducting the training and checks required by 
this subpart.
    (4) Provide enough flight instructors, check pilots, and simulator 
instructors to conduct required flight training and flight checks, and 
simulator training courses allowed under this subpart.
    (b) Whenever a crewmember who is required to take recurrent 
training under this subpart completes the training in the month before, 
or the month after, the month in which that training is required, the 
crewmember is considered to have completed it in the month in which it 
was required.
    (c) Each instructor, supervisor, or check pilot who is responsible 
for a particular ground training subject, segment of flight training, 
course of training, flight check, or competence check under this 
subpart must certify as to the proficiency and knowledge of the 
crewmember, flight instructor, or check pilot concerned upon completion 
of that training or check. That certification must be made a part of 
the crewmember's record. When the certification required by this 
paragraph is made by an entry in a computerized recordkeeping system, 
the certifying instructor, supervisor, or check pilot, must be 
identified with that entry. However, the signature of the certifying 
instructor, supervisor, or check pilot is not required for computerized 
entries.
    (d) Training subjects that apply to more than one aircraft or 
crewmember position and that have been satisfactorily completed during 
previous training while employed by the program manager for another 
aircraft or another crewmember position, need not be repeated during 
subsequent training other than recurrent training.
    (e) Aircraft simulators and other training devices may be used in 
the program manager's training program if approved by the 
Administrator.
    (f) Each program manager is responsible for establishing safe and 
efficient crew management practices for all phases of flight in program 
operations including crew resource management training for all 
crewmembers used in program operations.
    (g) If an aircraft simulator has been approved by the Administrator 
for use in the program manager's training program, the program manager 
must ensure that each pilot annually completes at least one flight 
training session in an approved simulator for at least one program 
aircraft. The training session may be the flight training portion of 
any of the pilot training or check requirements of this subpart, 
including the initial, transition, upgrade, requalification, 
differences, or recurrent training, or the accomplishment of a 
competency check or instrument proficiency check. If there is no 
approved simulator for that aircraft type in operation, then all flight 
training and checking must be accomplished in the aircraft.


Sec.  91.1075  Training program: Special rules.

    Other than the program manager, only the following are eligible 
under this subpart to conduct training, testing, and checking under 
contract or other arrangement to those persons subject to the 
requirements of this subpart.
    (a) Another program manager operating under this subpart:
    (b) A training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter 
to conduct training, testing, and checking required by this subpart if 
the training center--
    (1) Holds applicable training specifications issued under part 142 
of this chapter;
    (2) Has facilities, training equipment, and courseware meeting the 
applicable requirements of part 142 of this chapter;
    (3) Has approved curriculums, curriculum segments, and portions of 
curriculum segments applicable for use in training courses required by 
this subpart; and
    (4) Has sufficient instructors and check pilots qualified under the 
applicable requirements of Sec. Sec.  91.1089 through 91.1095 to 
conduct training, testing, and checking to persons subject to the 
requirements of this subpart.
    (c) A part 119 certificate holder operating under part 121 or part 
135 of this chapter.
    (d) As authorized by the Administrator, a training center that is 
not certificated under part 142 of this chapter.


Sec.  91.1077  Training program and revision: Initial and final 
approval.

    (a) To obtain initial and final approval of a training program, or 
a revision to an approved training program, each program manager must 
submit to the Administrator--

[[Page 54576]]

    (1) An outline of the proposed or revised curriculum, that provides 
enough information for a preliminary evaluation of the proposed 
training program or revision; and
    (2) Additional relevant information that may be requested by the 
Administrator.
    (b) If the proposed training program or revision complies with this 
subpart, the Administrator grants initial approval in writing after 
which the program manager may conduct the training under that program. 
The Administrator then evaluates the effectiveness of the training 
program and advises the program manager of deficiencies, if any, that 
must be corrected.
    (c) The Administrator grants final approval of the proposed 
training program or revision if the program manager shows that the 
training conducted under the initial approval in paragraph (b) of this 
section ensures that each person who successfully completes the 
training is adequately trained to perform that person's assigned 
duties.
    (d) Whenever the Administrator finds that revisions are necessary 
for the continued adequacy of a training program that has been granted 
final approval, the program manager must, after notification by the 
Administrator, make any changes in the program that are found necessary 
by the Administrator. Within 30 days after the program manager receives 
the notice, it may file a petition to reconsider the notice with the 
Administrator. The filing of a petition to reconsider stays the notice 
pending a decision by the Administrator. However, if the Administrator 
finds that there is an emergency that requires immediate action in the 
interest of safety, the Administrator may, upon a statement of the 
reasons, require a change effective without stay.


Sec.  91.1079  Training program: Curriculum.

    (a) Each program manager must prepare and keep current a written 
training program curriculum for each type of aircraft for each 
crewmember required for that type aircraft. The curriculum must include 
ground and flight training required by this subpart.
    (b) Each training program curriculum must include the following:
    (1) A list of principal ground training subjects, including 
emergency training subjects, that are provided.
    (2) A list of all the training devices, mock-ups, systems trainers, 
procedures trainers, or other training aids that the program manager 
will use.
    (3) Detailed descriptions or pictorial displays of the approved 
normal, abnormal, and emergency maneuvers, procedures and functions 
that will be performed during each flight training phase or flight 
check, indicating those maneuvers, procedures and functions that are to 
be performed during the inflight portions of flight training and flight 
checks.


Sec.  91.1081  Crewmember training requirements.

    (a) Each program manager must include in its training program the 
following initial and transition ground training as appropriate to the 
particular assignment of the crewmember:
    (1) Basic indoctrination ground training for newly hired 
crewmembers including instruction in at least the--
    (i) Duties and responsibilities of crewmembers as applicable;
    (ii) Appropriate provisions of this chapter;
    (iii) Contents of the program manager's management specifications 
(not required for flight attendants); and
    (iv) Appropriate portions of the program manager's operating 
manual.
    (2) The initial and transition ground training in Sec. Sec.  
91.1101 and 91.1105, as applicable.
    (3) Emergency training in Sec.  91.1083.
    (b) Each training program must provide the initial and transition 
flight training in Sec.  91.1103, as applicable.
    (c) Each training program must provide recurrent ground and flight 
training as provided in Sec.  91.1107.
    (d) Upgrade training in Sec. Sec.  91.1101 and 91.1103 for a 
particular type aircraft may be included in the training program for 
crewmembers who have qualified and served as second in command on that 
aircraft.
    (e) In addition to initial, transition, upgrade and recurrent 
training, each training program must provide ground and flight 
training, instruction, and practice necessary to ensure that each 
crewmember--
    (1) Remains adequately trained and currently proficient for each 
aircraft, crewmember position, and type of operation in which the 
crewmember serves; and
    (2) Qualifies in new equipment, facilities, procedures, and 
techniques, including modifications to aircraft.


Sec.  91.1083  Crewmember emergency training.

    (a) Each training program must provide emergency training under 
this section for each aircraft type, model, and configuration, each 
crewmember, and each kind of operation conducted, as appropriate for 
each crewmember and the program manager.
    (b) Emergency training must provide the following:
    (1) Instruction in emergency assignments and procedures, including 
coordination among crewmembers.
    (2) Individual instruction in the location, function, and operation 
of emergency equipment including--
    (i) Equipment used in ditching and evacuation;
    (ii) First aid equipment and its proper use; and
    (iii) Portable fire extinguishers, with emphasis on the type of 
extinguisher to be used on different classes of fires.
    (3) Instruction in the handling of emergency situations including--
    (i) Rapid decompression;
    (ii) Fire in flight or on the surface and smoke control procedures 
with emphasis on electrical equipment and related circuit breakers 
found in cabin areas;
    (iii) Ditching and evacuation;
    (iv) Illness, injury, or other abnormal situations involving 
passengers or crewmembers; and
    (v) Hijacking and other unusual situations.
    (4) Review and discussion of previous aircraft accidents and 
incidents involving actual emergency situations.
    (c) Each crewmember must perform at least the following emergency 
drills, using the proper emergency equipment and procedures, unless the 
Administrator finds that, for a particular drill, the crewmember can be 
adequately trained by demonstration:
    (1) Ditching, if applicable.
    (2) Emergency evacuation.
    (3) Fire extinguishing and smoke control.
    (4) Operation and use of emergency exits, including deployment and 
use of evacuation slides, if applicable.
    (5) Use of crew and passenger oxygen.
    (6) Removal of life rafts from the aircraft, inflation of the life 
rafts, use of lifelines, and boarding of passengers and crew, if 
applicable.
    (7) Donning and inflation of life vests and the use of other 
individual flotation devices, if applicable.
    (d) Crewmembers who serve in operations above 25,000 feet must 
receive instruction in the following:
    (1) Respiration.
    (2) Hypoxia.
    (3) Duration of consciousness without supplemental oxygen at 
altitude.
    (4) Gas expansion.
    (5) Gas bubble formation.
    (6) Physical phenomena and incidents of decompression.


Sec.  91.1085  Hazardous materials recognition training.

    No program manager may use any person to perform, and no person may 
perform, any assigned duties and

[[Page 54577]]

responsibilities for the handling or carriage of hazardous materials 
(as defined in 49 CFR 171.8), unless that person has received training 
in the recognition of hazardous materials.


Sec.  91.1087  Approval of aircraft simulators and other training 
devices.

    (a) Training courses using aircraft simulators and other training 
devices may be included in the program manager's training program if 
approved by the Administrator.
    (b) Each aircraft simulator and other training device that is used 
in a training course or in checks required under this subpart must meet 
the following requirements:
    (1) It must be specifically approved for--
    (i) The program manager; and
    (ii) The particular maneuver, procedure, or crewmember function 
involved.
    (2) It must maintain the performance, functional, and other 
characteristics that are required for approval.
    (3) Additionally, for aircraft simulators, it must be--
    (i) Approved for the type aircraft and, if applicable, the 
particular variation within type for which the training or check is 
being conducted; and
    (ii) Modified to conform with any modification to the aircraft 
being simulated that changes the performance, functional, or other 
characteristics required for approval.
    (c) A particular aircraft simulator or other training device may be 
used by more than one program manager.
    (d) In granting initial and final approval of training programs or 
revisions to them, the Administrator considers the training devices, 
methods, and procedures listed in the program manager's curriculum 
under Sec.  91.1079.


Sec.  91.1089  Qualifications: Check pilots (aircraft) and check pilots 
(simulator).

    (a) For the purposes of this section and Sec.  91.1093:
    (1) A check pilot (aircraft) is a person who is qualified to 
conduct flight checks in an aircraft, in a flight simulator, or in a 
flight training device for a particular type aircraft.
    (2) A check pilot (simulator) is a person who is qualified to 
conduct flight checks, but only in a flight simulator, in a flight 
training device, or both, for a particular type aircraft.
    (3) Check pilots (aircraft) and check pilots (simulator) are those 
check pilots who perform the functions described in Sec.  91.1073(a)(4) 
and (c).
    (b) No program manager may use a person, nor may any person serve 
as a check pilot (aircraft) in a training program established under 
this subpart unless, with respect to the aircraft type involved, that 
person--
    (1) Holds the pilot certificates and ratings required to serve as a 
pilot in command in operations under this subpart;
    (2) Has satisfactorily completed the training phases for the 
aircraft, including recurrent training, that are required to serve as a 
pilot in command in operations under this subpart;
    (3) Has satisfactorily completed the proficiency or competency 
checks that are required to serve as a pilot in command in operations 
under this subpart;
    (4) Has satisfactorily completed the applicable training 
requirements of Sec.  91.1093;
    (5) Holds at least a Class III medical certificate unless serving 
as a required crewmember, in which case holds a Class I or Class II 
medical certificate as appropriate; and
    (6) Has been approved by the Administrator for the check pilot 
duties involved.
    (c) No program manager may use a person, nor may any person serve 
as a check pilot (simulator) in a training program established under 
this subpart unless, with respect to the aircraft type involved, that 
person meets the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, or--
    (1) Holds the applicable pilot certificates and ratings, except 
medical certificate, required to serve as a pilot in command in 
operations under this subpart;
    (2) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate training phases 
for the aircraft, including recurrent training, that are required to 
serve as a pilot in command in operations under this subpart;
    (3) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate proficiency or 
competency checks that are required to serve as a pilot in command in 
operations under this subpart;
    (4) Has satisfactorily completed the applicable training 
requirements of Sec.  91.1093; and
    (5) Has been approved by the Administrator for the check pilot 
(simulator) duties involved.
    (d) Completion of the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2), (3), and 
(4) or (c)(2), (3), and (4) of this section, as applicable, must be 
entered in the individual's training record maintained by the program 
manager.
    (e) A check pilot who does not hold an appropriate medical 
certificate may function as a check pilot (simulator), but may not 
serve as a flightcrew member in operations under this subpart.
    (f) A check pilot (simulator) must accomplish the following--
    (1) Fly at least two flight segments as a required crewmember for 
the type, class, or category aircraft involved within the 12-month 
period preceding the performance of any check pilot duty in a flight 
simulator; or
    (2) Before performing any check pilot duty in a flight simulator, 
satisfactorily complete an approved line-observation program within the 
period prescribed by that program.
    (g) The flight segments or line-observation program required in 
paragraph (f) of this section are considered to be completed in the 
month required if completed in the month before or the month after the 
month in which they are due.


Sec.  91.1091  Qualifications: Flight instructors (aircraft) and flight 
instructors (simulator).

    (a) For the purposes of this section and Sec.  91.1095:
    (1) A flight instructor (aircraft) is a person who is qualified to 
instruct in an aircraft, in a flight simulator, or in a flight training 
device for a particular type, class, or category aircraft.
    (2) A flight instructor (simulator) is a person who is qualified to 
instruct in a flight simulator, in a flight training device, or in 
both, for a particular type, class, or category aircraft.
    (3) Flight instructors (aircraft) and flight instructors 
(simulator) are those instructors who perform the functions described 
in Sec.  91.1073(a)(4) and (c).
    (b) No program manager may use a person, nor may any person serve 
as a flight instructor (aircraft) in a training program established 
under this subpart unless, with respect to the type, class, or category 
aircraft involved, that person--
    (1) Holds the pilot certificates and ratings required to serve as a 
pilot in command in operations under this subpart or part 121 or 135 of 
this chapter;
    (2) Has satisfactorily completed the training phases for the 
aircraft, including recurrent training, that are required to serve as a 
pilot in command in operations under this subpart;
    (3) Has satisfactorily completed the proficiency or competency 
checks that are required to serve as a pilot in command in operations 
under this subpart;
    (4) Has satisfactorily completed the applicable training 
requirements of Sec.  91.1095; and
    (5) Holds at least a Class III medical certificate.
    (c) No program manager may use a person, nor may any person serve 
as a flight instructor (simulator) in a training

[[Page 54578]]

program established under this subpart, unless, with respect to the 
type, class, or category aircraft involved, that person meets the 
provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, or--
    (1) Holds the pilot certificates and ratings, except medical 
certificate, required to serve as a pilot in command in operations 
under this subpart or part 121 or 135 of this chapter;
    (2) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate training phases 
for the aircraft, including recurrent training, that are required to 
serve as a pilot in command in operations under this subpart;
    (3) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate proficiency or 
competency checks that are required to serve as a pilot in command in 
operations under this subpart; and
    (4) Has satisfactorily completed the applicable training 
requirements of Sec.  91.1095.
    (d) Completion of the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2), (3), and 
(4) or (c)(2), (3), and (4) of this section, as applicable, must be 
entered in the individual's training record maintained by the program 
manager.
    (e) A pilot who does not hold a medical certificate may function as 
a flight instructor in an aircraft if functioning as a non-required 
crewmember, but may not serve as a flightcrew member in operations 
under this subpart.
    (f) A flight instructor (simulator) must accomplish the following--
    (1) Fly at least two flight segments as a required crewmember for 
the type, class, or category aircraft involved within the 12-month 
period preceding the performance of any flight instructor duty in a 
flight simulator; or
    (2) Satisfactorily complete an approved line-observation program 
within the period prescribed by that program and that must precede the 
performance of any check pilot duty in a flight simulator.
    (g) The flight segments or line-observation program required in 
paragraph (f) of this section are considered completed in the month 
required if completed in the month before, or in the month after, the 
month in which they are due.


Sec.  91.1093  Initial and transition training and checking: Check 
pilots (aircraft), check pilots (simulator).

    (a) No program manager may use a person nor may any person serve as 
a check pilot unless--
    (1) That person has satisfactorily completed initial or transition 
check pilot training; and
    (2) Within the preceding 24 months, that person satisfactorily 
conducts a proficiency or competency check under the observation of an 
FAA inspector or an aircrew designated examiner employed by the program 
manager. The observation check may be accomplished in part or in full 
in an aircraft, in a flight simulator, or in a flight training device.
    (b) The observation check required by paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section is considered to have been completed in the month required if 
completed in the month before or the month after the month in which it 
is due.
    (c) The initial ground training for check pilots must include the 
following:
    (1) Check pilot duties, functions, and responsibilities.
    (2) The applicable provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations 
and the program manager's policies and procedures.
    (3) The applicable methods, procedures, and techniques for 
conducting the required checks.
    (4) Proper evaluation of student performance including the 
detection of--
    (i) Improper and insufficient training; and
    (ii) Personal characteristics of an applicant that could adversely 
affect safety.
    (5) The corrective action in the case of unsatisfactory checks.
    (6) The approved methods, procedures, and limitations for 
performing the required normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures in 
the aircraft.
    (d) The transition ground training for a check pilot must include 
the approved methods, procedures, and limitations for performing the 
required normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures applicable to the 
aircraft to which the check pilot is in transition.
    (e) The initial and transition flight training for a check pilot 
(aircraft) must include the following--
    (1) The safety measures for emergency situations that are likely to 
develop during a check;
    (2) The potential results of improper, untimely, or nonexecution of 
safety measures during a check;
    (3) Training and practice in conducting flight checks from the left 
and right pilot seats in the required normal, abnormal, and emergency 
procedures to ensure competence to conduct the pilot flight checks 
required by this subpart; and
    (4) The safety measures to be taken from either pilot seat for 
emergency situations that are likely to develop during checking.
    (f) The requirements of paragraph (e) of this section may be 
accomplished in full or in part in flight, in a flight simulator, or in 
a flight training device, as appropriate.
    (g) The initial and transition flight training for a check pilot 
(simulator) must include the following:
    (1) Training and practice in conducting flight checks in the 
required normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures to ensure 
competence to conduct the flight checks required by this subpart. This 
training and practice must be accomplished in a flight simulator or in 
a flight training device.
    (2) Training in the operation of flight simulators, flight training 
devices, or both, to ensure competence to conduct the flight checks 
required by this subpart.


Sec.  91.1095  Initial and transition training and checking: Flight 
instructors (aircraft), flight instructors (simulator).

    (a) No program manager may use a person nor may any person serve as 
a flight instructor unless--
    (1) That person has satisfactorily completed initial or transition 
flight instructor training; and
    (2) Within the preceding 24 months, that person satisfactorily 
conducts instruction under the observation of an FAA inspector, a 
program manager check pilot, or an aircrew designated examiner employed 
by the program manager. The observation check may be accomplished in 
part or in full in an aircraft, in a flight simulator, or in a flight 
training device.
    (b) The observation check required by paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section is considered to have been completed in the month required if 
completed in the month before, or the month after, the month in which 
it is due.
    (c) The initial ground training for flight instructors must include 
the following:
    (1) Flight instructor duties, functions, and responsibilities.
    (2) The applicable Code of Federal Regulations and the program 
manager's policies and procedures.
    (3) The applicable methods, procedures, and techniques for 
conducting flight instruction.
    (4) Proper evaluation of student performance including the 
detection of--
    (i) Improper and insufficient training; and
    (ii) Personal characteristics of an applicant that could adversely 
affect safety.
    (5) The corrective action in the case of unsatisfactory training 
progress.
    (6) The approved methods, procedures, and limitations for 
performing the required normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures in 
the aircraft.

[[Page 54579]]

    (7) Except for holders of a flight instructor certificate--
    (i) The fundamental principles of the teaching-learning process;
    (ii) Teaching methods and procedures; and
    (iii) The instructor-student relationship.
    (d) The transition ground training for flight instructors must 
include the approved methods, procedures, and limitations for 
performing the required normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures 
applicable to the type, class, or category aircraft to which the flight 
instructor is in transition.
    (e) The initial and transition flight training for flight 
instructors (aircraft) must include the following--
    (1) The safety measures for emergency situations that are likely to 
develop during instruction;
    (2) The potential results of improper or untimely safety measures 
during instruction;
    (3) Training and practice from the left and right pilot seats in 
the required normal, abnormal, and emergency maneuvers to ensure 
competence to conduct the flight instruction required by this subpart; 
and
    (4) The safety measures to be taken from either the left or right 
pilot seat for emergency situations that are likely to develop during 
instruction.
    (f) The requirements of paragraph (e) of this section may be 
accomplished in full or in part in flight, in a flight simulator, or in 
a flight training device, as appropriate.
    (g) The initial and transition flight training for a flight 
instructor (simulator) must include the following:
    (1) Training and practice in the required normal, abnormal, and 
emergency procedures to ensure competence to conduct the flight 
instruction required by this subpart. These maneuvers and procedures 
must be accomplished in full or in part in a flight simulator or in a 
flight training device.
    (2) Training in the operation of flight simulators, flight training 
devices, or both, to ensure competence to conduct the flight 
instruction required by this subpart.


Sec.  91.1097  Pilot and flight attendant crewmember training programs.

    (a) Each program manager must establish and maintain an approved 
pilot training program, and each program manager who uses a flight 
attendant crewmember must establish and maintain an approved flight 
attendant training program, that is appropriate to the operations to 
which each pilot and flight attendant is to be assigned, and will 
ensure that they are adequately trained to meet the applicable 
knowledge and practical testing requirements of Sec. Sec.  91.1065 
through 91.1071.
    (b) Each program manager required to have a training program by 
paragraph (a) of this section must include in that program ground and 
flight training curriculums for--
    (1) Initial training;
    (2) Transition training;
    (3) Upgrade training;
    (4) Differences training;
    (5) Recurrent training; and
    (6) Requalification training.
    (c) Each program manager must provide current and appropriate study 
materials for use by each required pilot and flight attendant.
    (d) The program manager must furnish copies of the pilot and flight 
attendant crewmember training program, and all changes and additions, 
to the assigned representative of the Administrator. If the program 
manager uses training facilities of other persons, a copy of those 
training programs or appropriate portions used for those facilities 
must also be furnished. Curricula that follow FAA published curricula 
may be cited by reference in the copy of the training program furnished 
to the representative of the Administrator and need not be furnished 
with the program.


Sec.  91.1099  Crewmember initial and recurrent training requirements.

    No program manager may use a person, nor may any person serve, as a 
crewmember in operations under this subpart unless that crewmember has 
completed the appropriate initial or recurrent training phase of the 
training program appropriate to the type of operation in which the 
crewmember is to serve since the beginning of the 12th month before 
that service.


Sec.  91.1101  Pilots: Initial, transition, and upgrade ground 
training.

    Initial, transition, and upgrade ground training for pilots must 
include instruction in at least the following, as applicable to their 
duties:
    (a) General subjects--
    (1) The program manager's flight locating procedures;
    (2) Principles and methods for determining weight and balance, and 
runway limitations for takeoff and landing;
    (3) Enough meteorology to ensure a practical knowledge of weather 
phenomena, including the principles of frontal systems, icing, fog, 
thunderstorms, windshear and, if appropriate, high altitude weather 
situations;
    (4) Air traffic control systems, procedures, and phraseology;
    (5) Navigation and the use of navigational aids, including 
instrument approach procedures;
    (6) Normal and emergency communication procedures;
    (7) Visual cues before and during descent below Decision Altitude 
or MDA; and
    (8) Other instructions necessary to ensure the pilot's competence.
    (b) For each aircraft type--
    (1) A general description;
    (2) Performance characteristics;
    (3) Engines and propellers;
    (4) Major components;
    (5) Major aircraft systems (that is, flight controls, electrical, 
and hydraulic), other systems, as appropriate, principles of normal, 
abnormal, and emergency operations, appropriate procedures and 
limitations;
    (6) Knowledge and procedures for--
    (i) Recognizing and avoiding severe weather situations;
    (ii) Escaping from severe weather situations, in case of 
inadvertent encounters, including low-altitude windshear (except that 
rotorcraft pilots are not required to be trained in escaping from low-
altitude windshear);
    (iii) Operating in or near thunderstorms (including best 
penetration altitudes), turbulent air (including clear air turbulence), 
inflight icing, hail, and other potentially hazardous meteorological 
conditions; and
    (iv) Operating airplanes during ground icing conditions, (that is, 
any time conditions are such that frost, ice, or snow may reasonably be 
expected to adhere to the aircraft), if the program manager expects to 
authorize takeoffs in ground icing conditions, including:
    (A) The use of holdover times when using deicing/anti-icing fluids;
    (B) Airplane deicing/anti-icing procedures, including inspection 
and check procedures and responsibilities;
    (C) Communications;
    (D) Airplane surface contamination (that is, adherence of frost, 
ice, or snow) and critical area identification, and knowledge of how 
contamination adversely affects airplane performance and flight 
characteristics;
    (E) Types and characteristics of deicing/anti-icing fluids, if used 
by the program manager;
    (F) Cold weather preflight inspection procedures;
    (G) Techniques for recognizing contamination on the airplane;
    (7) Operating limitations;
    (8) Fuel consumption and cruise control;
    (9) Flight planning;

[[Page 54580]]

    (10) Each normal and emergency procedure; and
    (11) The approved Aircraft Flight Manual or equivalent.


Sec.  91.1103  Pilots: Initial, transition, upgrade, requalification, 
and differences flight training.

    (a) Initial, transition, upgrade, requalification, and differences 
training for pilots must include flight and practice in each of the 
maneuvers and procedures contained in each of the curriculums that are 
a part of the approved training program.
    (b) The maneuvers and procedures required by paragraph (a) of this 
section must be performed in flight, except to the extent that certain 
maneuvers and procedures may be performed in an aircraft simulator, or 
an appropriate training device, as allowed by this subpart.
    (c) If the program manager's approved training program includes a 
course of training using an aircraft simulator or other training 
device, each pilot must successfully complete--
    (1) Training and practice in the simulator or training device in at 
least the maneuvers and procedures in this subpart that are capable of 
being performed in the aircraft simulator or training device; and
    (2) A flight check in the aircraft or a check in the simulator or 
training device to the level of proficiency of a pilot in command or 
second in command, as applicable, in at least the maneuvers and 
procedures that are capable of being performed in an aircraft simulator 
or training device.


Sec.  91.1105  Flight attendants: Initial and transition ground 
training.

    Initial and transition ground training for flight attendants must 
include instruction in at least the following--
    (a) General subjects--
    (1) The authority of the pilot in command; and
    (2) Passenger handling, including procedures to be followed in 
handling deranged persons or other persons whose conduct might 
jeopardize safety.
    (b) For each aircraft type--
    (1) A general description of the aircraft emphasizing physical 
characteristics that may have a bearing on ditching, evacuation, and 
inflight emergency procedures and on other related duties;
    (2) The use of both the public address system and the means of 
communicating with other flight crewmembers, including emergency means 
in the case of attempted hijacking or other unusual situations; and
    (3) Proper use of electrical galley equipment and the controls for 
cabin heat and ventilation.


Sec.  91.1107  Recurrent training.

    (a) Each program manager must ensure that each crewmember receives 
recurrent training and is adequately trained and currently proficient 
for the type aircraft and crewmember position involved.
    (b) Recurrent ground training for crewmembers must include at least 
the following:
    (1) A quiz or other review to determine the crewmember's knowledge 
of the aircraft and crewmember position involved.
    (2) Instruction as necessary in the subjects required for initial 
ground training by this subpart, as appropriate, including low-altitude 
windshear training and training on operating during ground icing 
conditions, as prescribed in Sec.  91.1097 and described in Sec.  
91.1101, and emergency training.
    (c) Recurrent flight training for pilots must include, at least, 
flight training in the maneuvers or procedures in this subpart, except 
that satisfactory completion of the check required by Sec.  91.1065 
within the preceding 12 months may be substituted for recurrent flight 
training.


Sec.  91.1109  Aircraft maintenance: Inspection program.

    Each program manager must establish an aircraft inspection program 
for each make and model program aircraft and ensure each aircraft is 
inspected in accordance with that inspection program.
    (a) The inspection program must be in writing and include at least 
the following information:
    (1) Instructions and procedures for the conduct of inspections for 
the particular make and model aircraft, including necessary tests and 
checks. The instructions and procedures must set forth in detail the 
parts and areas of the airframe, engines, propellers, rotors, and 
appliances, including survival and emergency equipment required to be 
inspected.
    (2) A schedule for performing the inspections that must be 
accomplished under the inspection program expressed in terms of the 
time in service, calendar time, number of system operations, or any 
combination thereof.
    (3) The name and address of the person responsible for scheduling 
the inspections required by the inspection program. A copy of the 
inspection program must be made available to the person performing 
inspections on the aircraft and, upon request, to the Administrator.
    (b) Each person desiring to establish or change an approved 
inspection program under this section must submit the inspection 
program for approval to the Flight Standards District Office that 
issued the program manager's management specifications. The inspection 
program must be derived from one of the following programs:
    (1) An inspection program currently recommended by the manufacturer 
of the aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, and survival 
and emergency equipment;
    (2) An inspection program that is part of a continuous 
airworthiness maintenance program currently in use by a person holding 
an air carrier or operating certificate issued under part 119 of this 
chapter and operating that make and model aircraft under part 121 or 
135 of this chapter;
    (3) An aircraft inspection program approved under Sec.  135.419 of 
this chapter and currently in use under part 135 of this chapter by a 
person holding a certificate issued under part 119 of this chapter; or
    (4) An airplane inspection program approved under Sec.  125.247 of 
this chapter and currently in use under part 125 of this chapter.
    (5) An inspection program that is part of the program manager's 
continuous airworthiness maintenance program under Sec. Sec.  91.1411 
through 91.1443.
    (c) The Administrator may require revision of the inspection 
program approved under this section in accordance with the provisions 
of Sec.  91.415.


Sec.  91.1111  Maintenance training.

    The program manager must ensure that all employees who are 
responsible for maintenance related to program aircraft undergo 
appropriate initial and annual recurrent training and are competent to 
perform those duties.


Sec.  91.1113  Maintenance recordkeeping.

    Each fractional ownership program manager must keep (using the 
system specified in the manual required in Sec.  91.1025) the records 
specified in Sec.  91.417(a) for the periods specified in Sec.  
91.417(b).


Sec.  91.1115  Inoperable instruments and equipment.

    (a) No person may take off an aircraft with inoperable instruments 
or equipment installed unless the following conditions are met:
    (1) An approved Minimum Equipment List exists for that aircraft.
    (2) The program manager has been issued management specifications 
authorizing operations in accordance

[[Page 54581]]

with an approved Minimum Equipment List. The flight crew must have 
direct access at all times prior to flight to all of the information 
contained in the approved Minimum Equipment List through printed or 
other means approved by the Administrator in the program manager's 
management specifications. An approved Minimum Equipment List, as 
authorized by the management specifications, constitutes an approved 
change to the type design without requiring recertification.
    (3) The approved Minimum Equipment List must:
    (i) Be prepared in accordance with the limitations specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (ii) Provide for the operation of the aircraft with certain 
instruments and equipment in an inoperable condition.
    (4) Records identifying the inoperable instruments and equipment 
and the information required by (a)(3)(ii) of this section must be 
available to the pilot.
    (5) The aircraft is operated under all applicable conditions and 
limitations contained in the Minimum Equipment List and the management 
specifications authorizing use of the Minimum Equipment List.
    (b) The following instruments and equipment may not be included in 
the Minimum Equipment List:
    (1) Instruments and equipment that are either specifically or 
otherwise required by the airworthiness requirements under which the 
airplane is type certificated and that are essential for safe 
operations under all operating conditions.
    (2) Instruments and equipment required by an airworthiness 
directive to be in operable condition unless the airworthiness 
directive provides otherwise.
    (3) Instruments and equipment required for specific operations by 
this part.
    (c) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3) of this section, 
an aircraft with inoperable instruments or equipment may be operated 
under a special flight permit under Sec. Sec.  21.197 and 21.199 of 
this chapter.
    (d) A person authorized to use an approved Minimum Equipment List 
issued for a specific aircraft under part 121, 125, or 135 of this 
chapter must use that Minimum Equipment List to comply with this 
section.


Sec.  91.1411  Continuous airworthiness maintenance program use by 
fractional ownership program manager.

    Fractional ownership program aircraft may be maintained under a 
continuous airworthiness maintenance program (CAMP) under Sec. Sec.  
91.1413 through 91.1443. Any program manager who elects to maintain the 
program aircraft using a continuous airworthiness maintenance program 
must comply with Sec. Sec.  91.1413 through 91.1443.


Sec.  91.1413  CAMP: Responsibility for airworthiness.

    (a) For aircraft maintained in accordance with a Continuous 
Airworthiness Maintenance Program, each program manager is primarily 
responsible for the following:
    (1) Maintaining the airworthiness of the program aircraft, 
including airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, rotors, appliances, 
and parts.
    (2) Maintaining its aircraft in accordance with the requirements of 
this chapter.
    (3) Repairing defects that occur between regularly scheduled 
maintenance required under part 43 of this chapter.
    (b) Each program manager who maintains program aircraft under a 
CAMP must--
    (1) Employ a Director of Maintenance or equivalent position. The 
Director of Maintenance must be a certificated mechanic with airframe 
and powerplant ratings who has responsibility for the maintenance 
program on all program aircraft maintained under a continuous 
airworthiness maintenance program. This person cannot also act as Chief 
Inspector.
    (2) Employ a Chief Inspector or equivalent position. The Chief 
Inspector must be a certificated mechanic with airframe and powerplant 
ratings who has overall responsibility for inspection aspects of the 
CAMP. This person cannot also act as Director of Maintenance.
    (3) Have the personnel to perform the maintenance of program 
aircraft, including airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, rotors, 
appliances, emergency equipment and parts, under its manual and this 
chapter; or make arrangements with another person for the performance 
of maintenance. However, the program manager must ensure that any 
maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration that is performed by 
another person is performed under the program manager's operating 
manual and this chapter.


Sec.  91.1415  CAMP: Mechanical reliability reports.

    (a) Each program manager who maintains program aircraft under a 
CAMP must report the occurrence or detection of each failure, 
malfunction, or defect in an aircraft concerning--
    (1) Fires during flight and whether the related fire-warning system 
functioned properly;
    (2) Fires during flight not protected by related fire-warning 
system;
    (3) False fire-warning during flight;
    (4) An exhaust system that causes damage during flight to the 
engine, adjacent structure, equipment, or components;
    (5) An aircraft component that causes accumulation or circulation 
of smoke, vapor, or toxic or noxious fumes in the crew compartment or 
passenger cabin during flight;
    (6) Engine shutdown during flight because of flameout;
    (7) Engine shutdown during flight when external damage to the 
engine or aircraft structure occurs;
    (8) Engine shutdown during flight because of foreign object 
ingestion or icing;
    (9) Shutdown of more than one engine during flight;
    (10) A propeller feathering system or ability of the system to 
control overspeed during flight;
    (11) A fuel or fuel-dumping system that affects fuel flow or causes 
hazardous leakage during flight;
    (12) An unwanted landing gear extension or retraction or opening or 
closing of landing gear doors during flight;
    (13) Brake system components that result in loss of brake actuating 
force when the aircraft is in motion on the ground;
    (14) Aircraft structure that requires major repair;
    (15) Cracks, permanent deformation, or corrosion of aircraft 
structures, if more than the maximum acceptable to the manufacturer or 
the FAA; and
    (16) Aircraft components or systems that result in taking emergency 
actions during flight (except action to shut down an engine).
    (b) For the purpose of this section, during flight means the period 
from the moment the aircraft leaves the surface of the earth on takeoff 
until it touches down on landing.
    (c) In addition to the reports required by paragraph (a) of this 
section, each program manager must report any other failure, 
malfunction, or defect in an aircraft that occurs or is detected at any 
time if, in the manager's opinion, the failure, malfunction, or defect 
has endangered or may endanger the safe operation of the aircraft.
    (d) Each program manager must send each report required by this 
section, in writing, covering each 24-hour period beginning at 0900 
hours local time of each day and ending at 0900 hours local time on the 
next day to the Flight Standards District Office that issued the 
program manager's management specifications. Each report of

[[Page 54582]]

occurrences during a 24-hour period must be mailed or transmitted to 
that office within the next 72 hours. However, a report that is due on 
Saturday or Sunday may be mailed or transmitted on the following Monday 
and one that is due on a holiday may be mailed or transmitted on the 
next workday. For aircraft operated in areas where mail is not 
collected, reports may be mailed or transmitted within 72 hours after 
the aircraft returns to a point where the mail is collected.
    (e) The program manager must transmit the reports required by this 
section on a form and in a manner prescribed by the Administrator, and 
must include as much of the following as is available:
    (1) The type and identification number of the aircraft.
    (2) The name of the program manager.
    (3) The date.
    (4) The nature of the failure, malfunction, or defect.
    (5) Identification of the part and system involved, including 
available information pertaining to type designation of the major 
component and time since last overhaul, if known.
    (6) Apparent cause of the failure, malfunction or defect (for 
example, wear, crack, design deficiency, or personnel error).
    (7) Other pertinent information necessary for more complete 
identification, determination of seriousness, or corrective action.
    (f) A program manager that is also the holder of a type certificate 
(including a supplemental type certificate), a Parts Manufacturer 
Approval, or a Technical Standard Order Authorization, or that is the 
licensee of a type certificate need not report a failure, malfunction, 
or defect under this section if the failure, malfunction, or defect has 
been reported by it under Sec.  21.3 of this chapter or under the 
accident reporting provisions of part 830 of the regulations of the 
National Transportation Safety Board.
    (g) No person may withhold a report required by this section even 
when not all information required by this section is available.
    (h) When the program manager receives additional information, 
including information from the manufacturer or other agency, concerning 
a report required by this section, the program manager must 
expeditiously submit it as a supplement to the first report and 
reference the date and place of submission of the first report.


Sec.  91.1417  CAMP: Mechanical interruption summary report.

    Each program manager who maintains program aircraft under a CAMP 
must mail or deliver, before the end of the 10th day of the following 
month, a summary report of the following occurrences in multiengine 
aircraft for the preceding month to the Flight Standards District 
Office that issued the management specifications:
    (a) Each interruption to a flight, unscheduled change of aircraft 
en route, or unscheduled stop or diversion from a route, caused by 
known or suspected mechanical difficulties or malfunctions that are not 
required to be reported under Sec.  91.1415.
    (b) The number of propeller featherings in flight, listed by type 
of propeller and engine and aircraft on which it was installed. 
Propeller featherings for training, demonstration, or flight check 
purposes need not be reported.


Sec.  91.1423  CAMP: Maintenance organization.

    (a) Each program manager who maintains program aircraft under a 
CAMP that has its personnel perform any of its maintenance (other than 
required inspections), preventive maintenance, or alterations, and each 
person with whom it arranges for the performance of that work, must 
have an organization adequate to perform the work.
    (b) Each program manager who has personnel perform any inspections 
required by the program manager's manual under Sec.  91.1427(b) (2) or 
(3), (in this subpart referred to as required inspections), and each 
person with whom the program manager arranges for the performance of 
that work, must have an organization adequate to perform that work.
    (c) Each person performing required inspections in addition to 
other maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations, must 
organize the performance of those functions so as to separate the 
required inspection functions from the other maintenance, preventive 
maintenance, or alteration functions. The separation must be below the 
level of administrative control at which overall responsibility for the 
required inspection functions and other maintenance, preventive 
maintenance, or alterations is exercised.


Sec.  91.1425  CAMP: Maintenance, preventive maintenance, and 
alteration programs.

    Each program manager who maintains program aircraft under a CAMP 
must have an inspection program and a program covering other 
maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations that ensures that--
    (a) Maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations performed 
by its personnel, or by other persons, are performed under the program 
manager's manual;
    (b) Competent personnel and adequate facilities and equipment are 
provided for the proper performance of maintenance, preventive 
maintenance, or alterations; and
    (c) Each aircraft released to service is airworthy and has been 
properly maintained for operation under this part.


Sec.  91.1427  CAMP: Manual requirements.

    (a) Each program manager who maintains program aircraft under a 
CAMP must put in the operating manual the chart or description of the 
program manager's organization required by Sec.  91.1423 and a list of 
persons with whom it has arranged for the performance of any of its 
required inspections, and other maintenance, preventive maintenance, or 
alterations, including a general description of that work.
    (b) Each program manager must put in the operating manual the 
programs required by Sec.  91.1425 that must be followed in performing 
maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations of that program 
manager's aircraft, including airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, 
rotors, appliances, emergency equipment, and parts, and must include at 
least the following:
    (1) The method of performing routine and nonroutine maintenance 
(other than required inspections), preventive maintenance, or 
alterations.
    (2) A designation of the items of maintenance and alteration that 
must be inspected (required inspections) including at least those that 
could result in a failure, malfunction, or defect endangering the safe 
operation of the aircraft, if not performed properly or if improper 
parts or materials are used.
    (3) The method of performing required inspections and a designation 
by occupational title of personnel authorized to perform each required 
inspection.
    (4) Procedures for the reinspection of work performed under 
previous required inspection findings (buy-back procedures).
    (5) Procedures, standards, and limits necessary for required 
inspections and acceptance or rejection of the items required to be 
inspected and for periodic inspection and calibration of precision 
tools, measuring devices, and test equipment.
    (6) Procedures to ensure that all required inspections are 
performed.
    (7) Instructions to prevent any person who performs any item of 
work from

[[Page 54583]]

performing any required inspection of that work.
    (8) Instructions and procedures to prevent any decision of an 
inspector regarding any required inspection from being countermanded by 
persons other than supervisory personnel of the inspection unit, or a 
person at the level of administrative control that has overall 
responsibility for the management of both the required inspection 
functions and the other maintenance, preventive maintenance, or 
alterations functions.
    (9) Procedures to ensure that maintenance (including required 
inspections), preventive maintenance, or alterations that are not 
completed because of work interruptions are properly completed before 
the aircraft is released to service.
    (c) Each program manager must put in the manual a suitable system 
(which may include an electronic or coded system) that provides for the 
retention of the following information --
    (1) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the 
Administrator) of the work performed;
    (2) The name of the person performing the work if the work is 
performed by a person outside the organization of the program manager; 
and
    (3) The name or other positive identification of the individual 
approving the work.
    (d) For the purposes of this part, the program manager must prepare 
that part of its manual containing maintenance information and 
instructions, in whole or in part, in a format acceptable to the 
Administrator, that is retrievable in the English language.


Sec.  91.1429  CAMP: Required inspection personnel.

    (a) No person who maintains an aircraft under a CAMP may use any 
person to perform required inspections unless the person performing the 
inspection is appropriately certificated, properly trained, qualified, 
and authorized to do so.
    (b) No person may allow any person to perform a required inspection 
unless, at the time the work was performed, the person performing that 
inspection is under the supervision and control of the chief inspector.
    (c) No person may perform a required inspection if that person 
performed the item of work required to be inspected.
    (d) Each program manager must maintain, or must ensure that each 
person with whom it arranges to perform required inspections maintains, 
a current listing of persons who have been trained, qualified, and 
authorized to conduct required inspections. The persons must be 
identified by name, occupational title, and the inspections that they 
are authorized to perform. The program manager (or person with whom it 
arranges to perform its required inspections) must give written 
information to each person so authorized, describing the extent of that 
person's responsibilities, authorities, and inspectional limitations. 
The list must be made available for inspection by the Administrator 
upon request.


Sec.  91.1431  CAMP: Continuing analysis and surveillance.

    (a) Each program manager who maintains program aircraft under a 
CAMP must establish and maintain a system for the continuing analysis 
and surveillance of the performance and effectiveness of its inspection 
program and the program covering other maintenance, preventive 
maintenance, and alterations and for the correction of any deficiency 
in those programs, regardless of whether those programs are carried out 
by employees of the program manager or by another person.
    (b) Whenever the Administrator finds that the programs described in 
paragraph (a) of this section does not contain adequate procedures and 
standards to meet this part, the program manager must, after 
notification by the Administrator, make changes in those programs 
requested by the Administrator.
    (c) A program manager may petition the Administrator to reconsider 
the notice to make a change in a program. The petition must be filed 
with the Director, Flight Standards Service, within 30 days after the 
program manager receives the notice. Except in the case of an emergency 
requiring immediate action in the interest of safety, the filing of the 
petition stays the notice pending a decision by the Administrator.


Sec.  91.1433  CAMP: Maintenance and preventive maintenance training 
program.

    Each program manager who maintains program aircraft under a CAMP or 
a person performing maintenance or preventive maintenance functions for 
it must have a training program to ensure that each person (including 
inspection personnel) who determines the adequacy of work done is fully 
informed about procedures and techniques and new equipment in use and 
is competent to perform that person's duties.


Sec.  91.1435  CAMP: Certificate requirements.

    (a) Except for maintenance, preventive maintenance, alterations, 
and required inspections performed by repair stations located outside 
the United States certificated under the provisions of part 145 of this 
chapter, each person who is directly in charge of maintenance, 
preventive maintenance, or alterations for a CAMP, and each person 
performing required inspections for a CAMP must hold an appropriate 
airman certificate.
    (b) For the purpose of this section, a person ``directly in 
charge'' is each person assigned to a position in which that person is 
responsible for the work of a shop or station that performs 
maintenance, preventive maintenance, alterations, or other functions 
affecting airworthiness. A person who is directly in charge need not 
physically observe and direct each worker constantly but must be 
available for consultation and decision on matters requiring 
instruction or decision from higher authority than that of the person 
performing the work.


Sec.  91.1437  CAMP: Authority to perform and approve maintenance.

    A program manager who maintains program aircraft under a CAMP may 
employ maintenance personnel, or make arrangements with other persons 
to perform maintenance and preventive maintenance as provided in its 
maintenance manual. Unless properly certificated, the program manager 
may not perform or approve maintenance for return to service.


Sec.  91.1439  CAMP: Maintenance recording requirements.

    (a) Each program manager who maintains program aircraft under a 
CAMP must keep (using the system specified in the manual required in 
Sec.  91.1427) the following records for the periods specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section:
    (1) All the records necessary to show that all requirements for the 
issuance of an airworthiness release under Sec.  91.1443 have been met.
    (2) Records containing the following information:
    (i) The total time in service of the airframe, engine, propeller, 
and rotor.
    (ii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe, 
engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance.
    (iii) The time since last overhaul of each item installed on the 
aircraft that are required to be overhauled on a specified time basis.
    (iv) The identification of the current inspection status of the 
aircraft, including the time since the last inspections required by the 
inspection program under which the aircraft and its appliances are 
maintained.
    (v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives, 
including the

[[Page 54584]]

date and methods of compliance, and, if the airworthiness directive 
involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is 
required.
    (vi) A list of current major alterations and repairs to each 
airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance.
    (b) Each program manager must retain the records required to be 
kept by this section for the following periods:
    (1) Except for the records of the last complete overhaul of each 
airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance the records specified 
in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be retained until the work is 
repeated or superseded by other work or for one year after the work is 
performed.
    (2) The records of the last complete overhaul of each airframe, 
engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance must be retained until the work 
is superseded by work of equivalent scope and detail.
    (3) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section must 
be retained as specified unless transferred with the aircraft at the 
time the aircraft is sold.
    (c) The program manager must make all maintenance records required 
to be kept by this section available for inspection by the 
Administrator or any representative of the National Transportation 
Safety Board.


Sec.  91.1441  CAMP: Transfer of maintenance records.

    When a U.S.-registered fractional ownership program aircraft 
maintained under a CAMP is removed from the list of program aircraft in 
the management specifications, the program manager must transfer to the 
purchaser, at the time of the sale, the following records of that 
aircraft, in plain language form or in coded form that provides for the 
preservation and retrieval of information in a manner acceptable to the 
Administrator:
    (a) The records specified in Sec.  91.1439(a)(2).
    (b) The records specified in Sec.  91.1439(a)(1) that are not 
included in the records covered by paragraph (a) of this section, 
except that the purchaser may allow the program manager to keep 
physical custody of such records. However, custody of records by the 
program manager does not relieve the purchaser of its responsibility 
under Sec.  91.1439(c) to make the records available for inspection by 
the Administrator or any representative of the National Transportation 
Safety Board.


Sec.  91.1443  CAMP: Airworthiness release or aircraft maintenance log 
entry.

    (a) No program aircraft maintained under a CAMP may be operated 
after maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations are performed 
unless qualified, certificated personnel employed by the program 
manager prepare, or cause the person with whom the program manager 
arranges for the performance of the maintenance, preventive 
maintenance, or alterations, to prepare--
    (1) An airworthiness release; or
    (2) An appropriate entry in the aircraft maintenance log.
    (b) The airworthiness release or log entry required by paragraph 
(a) of this section must--
    (1) Be prepared in accordance with the procedure in the program 
manager's manual;
    (2) Include a certification that--
    (i) The work was performed in accordance with the requirements of 
the program manager's manual;
    (ii) All items required to be inspected were inspected by an 
authorized person who determined that the work was satisfactorily 
completed;
    (iii) No known condition exists that would make the aircraft 
unairworthy;
    (iv) So far as the work performed is concerned, the aircraft is in 
condition for safe operation; and
    (3) Be signed by an authorized certificated mechanic.
    (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(3) of this section, after 
maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations performed by a 
repair station certificated under the provisions of part 145 of this 
chapter, the approval for return to service or log entry required by 
paragraph (a) of this section may be signed by a person authorized by 
that repair station.
    (d) Instead of restating each of the conditions of the 
certification required by paragraph (b) of this section, the program 
manager may state in its manual that the signature of an authorized 
certificated mechanic or repairman constitutes that certification.

0
22. Amend appendix G to part 91 by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(2), and 
(b)(3) of Section 3 and the introductory text of Section 7 to read as 
follows:

Appendix G to Part 91--Operations in Reduced Vertical Separation 
Minimum (RVSM) Airspace

* * * * *


Section 3. Operator Authorization

    (a) Authority for an operator to conduct flight in airspace where 
RVSM is applied is issued in operations specifications, a Letter of 
Authorization, or management specifications issued under subpart K of 
this part, as appropriate. To issue an RVSM authorization, the 
Administrator must find that the operator's aircraft have been approved 
in accordance with Section 2 of this appendix and the operator complies 
with this section.
    (b) * * *
    (2) For an applicant who operates under part 121 or 135 of this 
chapter or under subpart K of this part, initial and recurring pilot 
training requirements.
    (3) Policies and procedures: An applicant who operates under part 
121 or 135 of this chapter or under subpart K of this part must submit 
RVSM policies and procedures that will enable it to conduct RVSM 
operations safely.
* * * * *

Section 7. Removal or Amendment of Authority

    The Administrator may amend operations specifications or management 
specifications issued under subpart K of this part to revoke or 
restrict an RVSM authorization, or may revoke or restrict an RVSM 
letter of authorization, if the Administrator determines that the 
operator is not complying, or is unable to comply, with this appendix 
or subpart H of this part. Examples of reasons for amendment, 
revocation, ore restriction include, but are not limited to, an 
operator's:
* * * * *

PART 119--CERTIFICATION: AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS

0
23. The authority citation for part 119 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 40102, 40103, 40113, 
44105, 44106, 44111, 44701-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, 44904, 44906, 
44912, 44914, 44936, 44938, 46103, 46105.

0
24. Amend Sec.  119.1 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  119.1  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (d) This part does not govern operations conducted under part 91, 
subpart K (when common carriage is not involved) nor does it govern 
operations conducted under part 129, 133, 137, or 139 of this chapter.
* * * * *

PART 125--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING 
CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 
6,000 POUNDS OR MORE

0
25. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as follows:


[[Page 54585]]


    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44710-
44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722.

0
26. Amend Sec.  125.1 by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) and by 
adding paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(7) as follows:


Sec.  125.1  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) They are being operated under part 91 by an operator 
certificated to operate those airplanes under the rules of parts 121, 
135, or 137 of this chapter, they are being operated under the 
applicable rules of part 121 or part 135 of this chapter by an 
applicant for a certificate under part 119 of this chapter or they are 
being operated by a foreign air carrier or a foreign person engaged in 
common carriage solely outside the United States under part 91 of this 
chapter;
    (5) They are being operated under a deviation authority issued 
under Sec.  125.3;
    (6) They are being operated under part 91, subpart K by a 
fractional owner as defined in Sec.  91.1001 of this chapter; or
    (7) They are being operated by a fractional ownership program 
manager as defined in Sec.  91.1001 of this chapter, for training, 
ferrying, positioning, maintenance, or demonstration purposes under 
part 91 of this chapter and without carrying passengers or cargo for 
compensation or hire except as permitted for demonstration flights 
under Sec.  91.501(b)(3) of this chapter.
* * * * *

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON-DEMAND OPERATIONS

0
27. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 44113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709, 
44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.

0
28. Add Sec.  135.4 to read as follows:


Sec.  135.4  Applicability of rules for eligible on-demand operations.

    (a) An ``eligible on-demand operation'' is an on-demand operation 
conducted under this part that meets the following requirements:
    (1) Two-pilot crew. The flightcrew must consist of at least two 
qualified pilots employed or contracted by the certificate holder.
    (2) Flight crew experience. The crewmembers must have met the 
applicable requirements of part 61 of this chapter and have the 
following experience and ratings:
    (i) Total flight time for all pilots:
    (A) Pilot in command--A minimum of 1,500 hours.
    (B) Second in command--A minimum of 500 hours.
    (ii) For multi-engine turbine-powered fixed-wing and powered-lift 
aircraft, the following FAA certification and ratings requirements:
    (A) Pilot in command--Airline transport pilot and applicable type 
ratings.
    (B) Second in command--Commercial pilot and instrument ratings.
    (iii) For all other aircraft, the following FAA certification and 
rating requirements:
    (A) Pilot in command--Commercial pilot and instrument ratings.
    (B) Second in command--Commercial pilot and instrument ratings.
    (3) Pilot operating limitations. If the second in command of a 
fixed-wing aircraft has fewer than 100 hours of flight time as second 
in command flying in the aircraft make and model and, if a type rating 
is required, in the type aircraft being flown, and the pilot in command 
is not an appropriately qualified check pilot, the pilot in command 
shall make all takeoffs and landings in any of the following 
situations:
    (i) Landings at the destination airport when a Destination Airport 
Analysis is required by Sec.  135.385(f); and
    (ii) In any of the following conditions:
    (A) The prevailing visibility for the airport is at or below 
[bsol]\3/4\[bsol] mile.
    (B) The runway visual range for the runway to be used is at or 
below 4,000 feet.
    (C) The runway to be used has water, snow, slush, ice, or similar 
contamination that may adversely affect aircraft performance.
    (D) The braking action on the runway to be used is reported to be 
less than ``good.''
    (E) The crosswind component for the runway to be used is in excess 
of 15 knots.
    (F) Windshear is reported in the vicinity of the airport.
    (G) Any other condition in which the pilot in command determines it 
to be prudent to exercise the pilot in command's authority.
    (4) Crew pairing. Either the pilot in command or the second in 
command must have at least 75 hours of flight time in that aircraft 
make or model and, if a type rating is required, for that type 
aircraft, either as pilot in command or second in command.
    (b) The Administrator may authorize deviations from paragraphs 
(a)(2)(i) or (a)(4) of this section if the Flight Standards District 
Office that issued the certificate holder's operations specifications 
finds that the crewmember has comparable experience, and can 
effectively perform the functions associated with the position in 
accordance with the requirements of this chapter. The Administrator 
may, at any time, terminate any grant of deviation authority issued 
under this paragraph. Grants of deviation under this paragraph may be 
granted after consideration of the size and scope of the operation, the 
qualifications of the intended personnel and the following 
circumstances:
    (1) A newly authorized certificate holder does not employ any 
pilots who meet the minimum requirements of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) or 
(a)(4) of this section.
    (2) An existing certificate holder adds to its fleet a new category 
and class aircraft not used before in its operation.
    (3) An existing certificate holder establishes a new base to which 
it assigns pilots who will be required to become qualified on the 
aircraft operated from that base.
    (c) An eligible on-demand operation may comply with alternative 
requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  135.225(b), 135.385(f), and 
135.387(b) instead of the requirements that apply to other on-demand 
operations.

0
29. Amend Sec.  135.21 by revising paragraphs (f) and (g) and adding 
paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  135.21  Manual requirements.

* * * * *
    (f) Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section, each 
certificate holder must carry appropriate parts of the manual on each 
aircraft when away from the principal operations base. The appropriate 
parts must be available for use by ground or flight personnel.
    (g) For the purpose of complying with paragraph (d) of this 
section, a certificate holder may furnish the persons listed therein 
with all or part of its manual in printed form or other form, 
acceptable to the Administrator, that is retrievable in the English 
language. If the certificate holder furnishes all or part of the manual 
in other than printed form, it must ensure there is a compatible 
reading device available to those persons that provides a legible image 
of the information and instructions, or a system that is able to 
retrieve the information and instructions in the English language.
    (h) If a certificate holder conducts aircraft inspections or 
maintenance at specified stations where it keeps the approved 
inspection program manual, it is not required to carry the manual 
aboard the aircraft en route to those stations.

[[Page 54586]]


0
30. Amend Sec.  135.23 by revising paragraph (r) and adding paragraph 
(s) to read as follows:


Sec.  135.23  Manual contents.

* * * * *
    (r) If required by Sec.  135.385, an approved Destination Airport 
Analysis establishing runway safety margins at destination airports, 
taking into account the following factors as supported by published 
aircraft performance data supplied by the aircraft manufacturer for the 
appropriate runway conditions--
    (1) Pilot qualifications and experience;
    (2) Aircraft performance data to include normal, abnormal and 
emergency procedures as supplied by the aircraft manufacturer;
    (3) Airport facilities and topography;
    (4) Runway conditions (including contamination);
    (5) Airport or area weather reporting;
    (6) Appropriate additional runway safety margins, if required;
    (7) Airplane inoperative equipment;
    (8) Environmental conditions; and
    (9) Other criteria affecting aircraft performance.
    (s) Other procedures and policy instructions regarding the 
certificate holder's operations issued by the certificate holder.

0
31. Revise Sec.  135.145 to read as follows:


Sec.  135.145  Aircraft proving and validation tests.

    (a) No certificate holder may operate an aircraft, other than a 
turbojet aircraft, for which two pilots are required by this chapter 
for operations under VFR, if it has not previously proved such an 
aircraft in operations under this part in at least 25 hours of proving 
tests acceptable to the Administrator including--
    (1) Five hours of night time, if night flights are to be 
authorized;
    (2) Five instrument approach procedures under simulated or actual 
conditions, if IFR flights are to be authorized; and
    (3) Entry into a representative number of en route airports as 
determined by the Administrator.
    (b) No certificate holder may operate a turbojet airplane if it has 
not previously proved a turbojet airplane in operations under this part 
in at least 25 hours of proving tests acceptable to the Administrator 
including--
    (1) Five hours of night time, if night flights are to be 
authorized;
    (2) Five instrument approach procedures under simulated or actual 
conditions, if IFR flights are to be authorized; and
    (3) Entry into a representative number of en route airports as 
determined by the Administrator.
    (c) No certificate holder may carry passengers in an aircraft 
during proving tests, except those needed to make the tests and those 
designated by the Administrator to observe the tests. However, pilot 
flight training may be conducted during the proving tests.
    (d) Validation testing is required to determine that a certificate 
holder is capable of conducting operations safely and in compliance 
with applicable regulatory standards. Validation tests are required for 
the following authorizations:
    (1) The addition of an aircraft for which two pilots are required 
for operations under VFR or a turbojet airplane, if that aircraft or an 
aircraft of the same make or similar design has not been previously 
proved or validated in operations under this part.
    (2) Operations outside U.S. airspace.
    (3) Class II navigation authorizations.
    (4) Special performance or operational authorizations.
    (e) Validation tests must be accomplished by test methods 
acceptable to the Administrator. Actual flights may not be required 
when an applicant can demonstrate competence and compliance with 
appropriate regulations without conducting a flight.
    (f) Proving tests and validation tests may be conducted 
simultaneously when appropriate.
    (g) The Administrator may authorize deviations from this section if 
the Administrator finds that special circumstances make full compliance 
with this section unnecessary.

0
32. Amend Sec.  135.167 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to 
read as follows:


Sec.  135.167  Emergency equipment: Extended overwater operations.

    (a) Except where the Administrator, by amending the operations 
specifications of the certificate holder, requires the carriage of all 
or any specific items of the equipment listed below for any overwater 
operation, or, upon application of the certificate holder, the 
Administrator allows deviation for a particular extended overwater 
operation, no person may operate an aircraft in extended overwater 
operations unless it carries, installed in conspicuously marked 
locations easily accessible to the occupants if a ditching occurs, the 
following equipment:
* * * * *

0
33. Amend Sec.  135.179 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  135.179  Inoperable instruments and equipment.

* * * * *
    (c) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3) of this section, 
an aircraft with inoperable instruments or equipment may be operated 
under a special flight permit under Sec. Sec.  21.197 and 21.199 of 
this chapter.

0
34. Amend Sec.  135.225 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text, 
redesignating paragraphs (b) through (h) as paragraphs (c) through (i), 
adding new paragraph (b), and revising redesignated paragraphs (d) and 
(h) to read as follows:


Sec.  135.225  IFR: Takeoff, approach and landing minimums.

    (a) Except to the extent permitted by paragraph (b) of this 
section, no pilot may begin an instrument approach procedure to an 
airport unless--
* * * * *
    (b) A pilot conducting an eligible on-demand operation may begin an 
instrument approach procedure to an airport that does not have a 
weather reporting facility operated by the U.S. National Weather 
Service, a source approved by the U.S. National Weather Service, or a 
source approved by the Administrator if--
    (1) The alternate airport has a weather reporting facility operated 
by the U.S. National Weather Service, a source approved by the U.S. 
National Weather Service, or a source approved by the Administrator; 
and
    (2) The latest weather report issued by the weather reporting 
facility includes a current local altimeter setting for the destination 
airport. If no local altimeter setting for the destination airport is 
available, the pilot may use the current altimeter setting provided by 
the facility designated on the approach chart for the destination 
airport.
* * * * *
    (d) If a pilot has begun the final approach segment of an 
instrument approach to an airport under paragraph (c) of this section 
and a later weather report indicating below minimum conditions is 
received after the aircraft is--
* * * * *
    (h) Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, if takeoff 
minimums are not prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for the takeoff 
airport, no pilot may takeoff an aircraft under IFR when the weather 
conditions reported by the facility described in paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section are less than that prescribed in part 91 of this chapter 
or in the certificate holder's operations specifications.
* * * * *

[[Page 54587]]


0
35. Amend Sec.  135.247 by adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  135.247  Pilot qualifications: Recent experience.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply to a pilot in 
command of a turbine-powered airplane that is type certificated for 
more than one pilot crewmember, provided that pilot has complied with 
the requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section:
    (i) The pilot in command must hold at least a commercial pilot 
certificate with the appropriate category, class, and type rating for 
each airplane that is type certificated for more than one pilot 
crewmember that the pilot seeks to operate under this alternative, and:
    (A) That pilot must have logged at least 1,500 hours of 
aeronautical experience as a pilot;
    (B) In each airplane that is type certificated for more than one 
pilot crewmember that the pilot seeks to operate under this 
alternative, that pilot must have accomplished and logged the daytime 
takeoff and landing recent flight experience of paragraph (a) of this 
section, as the sole manipulator of the flight controls;
    (C) Within the preceding 90 days prior to the operation of that 
airplane that is type certificated for more than one pilot crewmember, 
the pilot must have accomplished and logged at least 15 hours of flight 
time in the type of airplane that the pilot seeks to operate under this 
alternative; and
    (D) That pilot has accomplished and logged at least 3 takeoffs and 
3 landings to a full stop, as the sole manipulator of the flight 
controls, in a turbine-powered airplane that requires more than one 
pilot crewmember. The pilot must have performed the takeoffs and 
landings during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 
hour before sunrise within the preceding 6 months prior to the month of 
the flight.
    (ii) The pilot in command must hold at least a commercial pilot 
certificate with the appropriate category, class, and type rating for 
each airplane that is type certificated for more than one pilot 
crewmember that the pilot seeks to operate under this alternative, and:
    (A) That pilot must have logged at least 1,500 hours of 
aeronautical experience as a pilot;
    (B) In each airplane that is type certificated for more than one 
pilot crewmember that the pilot seeks to operate under this 
alternative, that pilot must have accomplished and logged the daytime 
takeoff and landing recent flight experience of paragraph (a) of this 
section, as the sole manipulator of the flight controls;
    (C) Within the preceding 90 days prior to the operation of that 
airplane that is type certificated for more than one pilot crewmember, 
the pilot must have accomplished and logged at least 15 hours of flight 
time in the type of airplane that the pilot seeks to operate under this 
alternative; and
    (D) Within the preceding 12 months prior to the month of the 
flight, the pilot must have completed a training program that is 
approved under part 142 of this chapter. The approved training program 
must have required and the pilot must have performed, at least 6 
takeoffs and 6 landings to a full stop as the sole manipulator of the 
controls in a flight simulator that is representative of a turbine-
powered airplane that requires more than one pilot crewmember. The 
flight simulator's visual system must have been adjusted to represent 
the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before 
sunrise.

0
36. Amend Sec.  135.251 by revising paragraph (b) and adding paragraphs 
(c) and (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  135.251  Testing for prohibited drugs.

* * * * *
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no 
certificate holder or operator may use any contractor to perform a 
function listed in appendix I part 121 of this chapter unless that 
contractor tests each employee performing such a function for the 
certificate holder or operator in accordance with that appendix.
    (c) If a certificate holder conducts an on-demand operation into an 
airport at which no maintenance providers are available that are 
subject to the requirements of appendix I to part 121 and emergency 
maintenance is required, the certificate holder may use persons not 
meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section to provide 
such emergency maintenance under both of the following conditions:
    (1) The certificate holder must give written notification of the 
emergency maintenance to the Drug Abatement Program Division, AAM-800, 
800 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC, 20591, within 10 days after 
being provided same in accordance with this paragraph. A certificate 
holder must retain copies of all such written notifications for two 
years.
    (2) The aircraft must be reinspected by maintenance personnel who 
meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section when the 
aircraft is next at an airport where such maintenance personnel are 
available.
    (d) For purposes of this section, emergency maintenance means 
maintenance that--
    (1) Is not scheduled and
    (2) Is made necessary by an aircraft condition not discovered prior 
to the departure for that location.

0
37. Amend Sec.  135.255 by revising paragraph (b) and adding paragraphs 
(c) and (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  135.255  Testing for alcohol.

* * * * *
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no 
certificate holder or operator may use any person who meets the 
definition of ``covered employee'' in appendix J to part 121 of this 
chapter to perform a safety-sensitive function listed in that appendix 
unless such person is subject to testing for alcohol misuse in 
accordance with the provisions of appendix J.
    (c) If a certificate holder conducts an on-demand operation into an 
airport at which no maintenance providers are available that are 
subject to the requirements of appendix J to part 121 of this chapter 
and emergency maintenance is required, the certificate holder may use 
persons not meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section 
to provide such emergency maintenance under both of the following 
conditions:
    (1) The certificate holder must give written notification of the 
emergency maintenance to the Drug Abatement Program Division, AAM-800, 
800 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC, 20591, within 10 days after 
being provided same in accordance with this paragraph. A certificate 
holder must retain copies of all such written notifications for two 
years.
    (2) The aircraft must be reinspected by maintenance personnel who 
meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section when the 
aircraft is next at an airport where such maintenance personnel are 
available.
    (d) For purposes of this section, emergency maintenance means 
maintenance that--
    (1) Is not scheduled, and
    (2) Is made necessary by an aircraft condition not discovered prior 
to the departure for that location.

0
38. Revise Sec.  135.291 paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  135.291  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) Permits training center personnel authorized under part 142 of 
this chapter who meet the requirements of Sec. Sec.  135.337 and 
135.339 to conduct training, testing, and checking under contract or 
other arrangement to those

[[Page 54588]]

persons subject to the requirements of this subpart.

0
39. Amend Sec.  135.321 by revising paragraph (b)(7) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  135.321  Applicability and terms used.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) Training center. An organization governed by the applicable 
requirements of part 142 of this chapter that conducts training, 
testing, and checking under contract or other arrangement to 
certificate holders subject to the requirements of this part.
* * * * *

0
40. Amend Sec.  135.324 by revising paragraph (a) and the introductory 
text of paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  135.324  Training program: Special rules.

    (a) Other than the certificate holder, only another certificate 
holder certificated under this part or a training center certificated 
under part 142 of this chapter is eligible under this subpart to 
conduct training, testing, and checking under contract or other 
arrangement to those persons subject to the requirements of this 
subpart.
    (b) A certificate holder may contract with, or otherwise arrange to 
use the services of, a training center certificated under part 142 of 
this chapter to conduct training, testing, and checking required by 
this part only if the training center--
* * * * *

0
41. Amend Sec.  135.385 by revising paragraph (b) and adding paragraph 
(f) to read as follows:


Sec.  135.385  Large transport category airplanes: Turbine engine 
powered: Landing limitations: Destination airports.

* * * * *
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c), (d), (e), or (f) of this 
section, no person operating a turbine engine powered large transport 
category airplane may take off that airplane unless its weight on 
arrival, allowing for normal consumption of fuel and oil in flight (in 
accordance with the landing distance in the Airplane Flight Manual for 
the elevation of the destination airport and the wind conditions 
expected there at the time of landing), would allow a full stop landing 
at the intended destination airport within 60 percent of the effective 
length of each runway described below from a point 50 feet above the 
intersection of the obstruction clearance plane and the runway. For the 
purpose of determining the allowable landing weight at the destination 
airport the following is assumed:
* * * * *
    (f) An eligible on-demand operator may take off a turbine engine 
powered large transport category airplane on an on-demand flight if all 
of the following conditions exist:
    (1) The operation is permitted by an approved Destination Airport 
Analysis in that person's operations manual.
    (2) The airplane's weight on arrival, allowing for normal 
consumption of fuel and oil in flight (in accordance with the landing 
distance in the Airplane Flight Manual for the elevation of the 
destination airport and the wind conditions expected there at the time 
of landing), would allow a full stop landing at the intended 
destination airport within 80 percent of the effective length of each 
runway described below from a point 50 feet above the intersection of 
the obstruction clearance plane and the runway. For the purpose of 
determining the allowable landing weight at the destination airport, 
the following is assumed:
    (i) The airplane is landed on the most favorable runway and in the 
most favorable direction, in still air.
    (ii) The airplane is landed on the most suitable runway considering 
the probable wind velocity and direction and the ground handling 
characteristics of the airplane, and considering other conditions such 
as landing aids and terrain.
    (3) The operation is authorized by operations specifications.

0
42. Revise Sec.  135.387 to read as follows:


Sec.  135.387  Large transport category airplanes: Turbine engine 
powered: Landing limitations: Alternate airports.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person 
may select an airport as an alternate airport for a turbine engine 
powered large transport category airplane unless (based on the 
assumptions in Sec.  135.385(b)) that airplane, at the weight expected 
at the time of arrival, can be brought to a full stop landing within 70 
percent of the effective length of the runway for turbo-propeller-
powered airplanes and 60 percent of the effective length of the runway 
for turbojet airplanes, from a point 50 feet above the intersection of 
the obstruction clearance plane and the runway.
    (b) Eligible on-demand operators may select an airport as an 
alternate airport for a turbine engine powered large transport category 
airplane if (based on the assumptions in Sec.  135.385(f)) that 
airplane, at the weight expected at the time of arrival, can be brought 
to a full stop landing within 80 percent of the effective length of the 
runway from a point 50 feet above the intersection of the obstruction 
clearance plane and the runway.

PART 142 --TRAINING CENTERS

0
43. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44703, 
44705, 44707, 44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

0
44. Amend Sec.  142.1 by revising paragraph (a), republishing paragraph 
(b) introductory text, revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(4) and (b)(5), 
and adding paragraph (b)(6) as set forth below, and by removing 
paragraph (c):


Sec.  142.1  Applicability.

    (a) This subpart prescribes the requirements governing the 
certification and operation of aviation training centers. Except as 
provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part provides an 
alternative means to accomplish training required by parts 61, 63, 91, 
121, 125, 127, 135, or 137 of this chapter.
    (b) Certification under this part is not required for training that 
is--
    (1) Approved under the provisions of parts 63, 91, 121, 127, 135, 
or 137 of this chapter;
* * * * *
    (4) Conducted by a part 121 certificate holder for another part 121 
certificate holder;
    (5) Conducted by a part 135 certificate holder for another part 135 
certificate holder; or
    (6) Conducted by a part 91 fractional ownership program manager for 
another part 91 fractional ownership program manager.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 27, 2003.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-23021 Filed 9-16-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P