[4910-13]                                      

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 121, 135

[Docket No. 28081; Notice No. 95-18]
RIN  2120 - AF63

Flight Crewmember Duty Period Limitations, Flight Time
Limitations and Rest Requirements

AGENCY:  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
______________________________________________________________
SUMMARY:  The FAA proposes to amend existing regulations to
establish one set of duty period limitations, flight time
limitations, and rest requirements for flight crewmembers engaged
in air transportation.  The proposal results from public and
congressional interest in regulating flight crewmember rest
requirements, NTSB Safety Recommendations, petitions for
rulemaking, and scientific data contained in recent National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) studies relating to
flight crewmember duty periods, flight times, and rest.  The
proposal would update the regulations and replace certain out-
dated regulations with a simplified regulatory approach based
upon scientific studies of fatigue.  The objective of the
proposal is to contribute to an improved aviation safety system
by ensuring that flight crewmembers are provided with the
opportunity to obtain sufficient rest to perform their routine
and emergency safety duties. 
DATES:  Comments must be received on or before March 19, 1995.
ADDRESSES:  Send or deliver comments on this notice in triplicate
to:  Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief
Counsel, Attention:  Rules Docket (AGC-200), Room 915G,
Docket No. 28081, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 
20591.  Comments may also be submitted to the Rules Docket by
using the following Internet address:  nprmcmts@mail.hq.faa.gov. 
 Comments must be marked Docket No. 28081.  Comments may be
examined in the Rules Docket in Room 915G on weekdays between
8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Larry Youngblut, Project
Development Branch, AFS-240, Air Transportation Division, Flight 
Standards Service, Room 829, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC  20591;
telephone (202) 267-3755.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
          Interested persons are invited to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments,
and by commenting on the possible environmental, economic, and
federalism-or energy-related impact of the adoption of this
proposal.  Comments concerning the proposed implementation and
effective date of the rule are also specifically requested.
          Comments should carry the regulatory docket or notice number
and should be submitted in triplicate to the Rules Docket address
specified above.  All comments received and a report summarizing 
any substantive public contact with FAA personnel on this
rulemaking will be filed in the docket.  The docket is available 
for public inspection both before and after the closing date for 
receiving comments.
          Before taking any final action on this proposal, the
Administrator will consider the comments made on or before the
closing date for comments, and the proposal may be changed in
light of the comments received.
          The FAA will acknowledge receipt of a comment if the
commenter includes a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the
comment.  The postcard should be marked "Comments to Docket
No. 28081."  When the comment is received by the FAA, the
postcard will be dated, time stamped, and returned to the
commenter.
Availability of the NPRM
          Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a
request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public 
Affairs, Attention:  Public Inquiry Center, APA-430,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC  20591, or by calling
(202) 267-3484.  Communications must identify the notice number
of this NPRM.
          Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for
future FAA NPRM's should request a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System,
which describes application procedures.

Background
          The aviation industry requires 24-hour activities to meet
operational demands.  Growth in global long-haul, regional,
overnight cargo, and short-haul domestic operations is likely to 
increase round-the-clock requirements.   Flight crews must be
available to support 24-hour a day operations to meet these
industry demands.  Both domestic and international aviation
frequently require crossing multiple time zones.  Therefore,
shift work, night work, irregular work schedules, unpredictable
work schedules, and time zone changes will continue to be
commonplace components of the aviation industry.  These factors
affect human physiology by causing performance-impairing fatigue 
that can affect the level of safety.  The FAA believes that it is
critical, whenever possible, to incorporate scientific
information on fatigue and human sleep physiology into
regulations on flight crew scheduling.  Such scientific
information can help to maintain the safety margin and promote
optimum crew performance and alertness during flight operations.
          Over the past 40 years, scientific knowledge about sleep,
sleep disorders, circadian physiology, fatigue,
sleepiness/alertness, and performance decrements has grown
significantly.  Some of this scientific knowledge, gained through
field and simulator studies, has confirmed that aviators
experience performance-impairing fatigue from sleep loss
resulting from current flight and duty practices.  Incorporation 
of scientific knowledge on fatigue into operations (e.g.,
regulatory scheduling considerations, personal strategies,
fatigue countermeasures) would greatly benefit safety.  A primary
purpose of this rulemaking is to incorporate as much as possible 
of the scientific knowledge into the applicable regulations.
          A second purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to establish
consistent and clear duty period limitations, flight time
limitations, and rest requirements for all types of operations.  
The current regulations require revising because of their
complexity and age.  While domestic flight time limitations and
some commuter limitations were updated in 1985, flag and
supplemental operations were not.  With advancements in new
aircraft, these operational distinctions are no longer as
meaningful as they once were.  This proposal would establish the 
same duty period limitations, flight time limitations, and rest
requirements for all types of operations in part 121 for
domestic, flag, and supplemental operations and in part 135 for
commuter and on-demand operations.  The duty period limitations, 
flight time limitations, and rest requirements would allow for
differences based on the length of flights and number of flight
crewmembers on a flight.
General Discussion
Historical Review
          The Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 1007; as amended
by 62 Stat. 1216, 49 U.S.C. 551) and subsequently, the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958 (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq.)
addressed the issue of regulating flight crewmember hours of
service.  The Federal Aviation Act, as amended, empowers and
directs the Secretary of Transportation to promote the safety of 
civil air flight in air commerce by prescribing and revising from
time to time "reasonable rules and regulations governing, in the 
interest of safety, the maximum hours or periods of service of
airmen, and other employees."  
     Despite many changes in the airline transportation industry 
over the 30 years before 1983, the rules governing flight time
limitations and rest requirements remained virtually unchanged
because no safety reasons had been presented which necessitated
changes to the regulations.  But the presumed level of safety
established by these rules did not necessarily mean that the
rules were as effective as they should have been when considered 
in light of changes that had occurred in the industry in the
previous 30 years.
     In 1983, a significant rulemaking was initiated to clarify
and simplify the regulations and to make them more applicable to 
the air transportation environment at that time.  A significant
driving force for amending the flight time regulations in 1983
was that the requirements under part 121 were so complicated that
they had required thousands of pages of interpretation and had
sometimes been incorrectly followed by air carriers.
     A second significant factor justifying amendment of the
rules in 1983 was their inflexibility.  For example, although
under the then existing rule, air carriers were not considered in
violation of the rules if flight times were exceeded due to
adverse weather conditions or other circumstances beyond the
control of the air carrier, an air carrier did not have the
flexibility to adjust scheduled rest periods in the event of late
arrivals or other factors.  If a flight was late, the subsequent 
flights often had to be delayed while substitute flight
crewmembers were brought in or while the flight crewmembers
received their scheduled rest periods.
     A third factor affecting the pre-1983 rules was, under
deregulation of the air transportation industry, the number and
variety of domestic certificate holders dramatically increased.  
The complexity and variety of the newer operations required that 
the FAA provide clear and simple minimum safety criteria for all 
operators.
     A fourth factor affecting the pre-1983 rules, and one
related to the changing character of the air transportation
industry, was the growth of commuter operations.  Some commuter
operations fall under part 121 domestic rules while others fall
under part 135 rules.  A question existed as to whether either
set of requirements effectively covered these comparatively new
and growing operations.  Thus an additional aim of the 1983-1985 
rulemaking proceedings was to study the materials submitted by
the commuter industry group and incorporate the findings into the
applicable rules in order to provide, in this segment of the
industry, a level of safety equivalent to other air
transportation operations.
     The 1983-1985 rulemaking proceeding was not the FAA's first 
attempt to solve the previously described problems.  For a number
of years before 1983 the FAA recognized that the flight time
limits and rest requirements needed to be clarified and
substantively improved in those areas where they were potentially
inadequate.  On several occasions the FAA had attempted to
correct the flight time limitation problems of both parts 121 and
135 through rulemaking actions.  But because of the complexity of
the flight time rules and the economic interests affected, none
of the previous proposals succeeded in resolving the problems to 
the satisfaction  of the affected parties.  Given the importance 
of the flight time rules in air transportation safety, the FAA
decided in 1983 to try an innovative approach that would bring
the affected parties together to negotiate a resolution.

1983-1985 Regulatory Negotiation 
     In 1983 regulatory negotiation was a new concept recommended
by the Administrative Conference of the United States. 
Basically, it was a procedure by which representatives of all
interests affected by a rulemaking could be brought together to
fully discuss the issues under conditions conducive to narrowing 
or eliminating differences and to negotiating a proposed rule
acceptable to each interest.  In accordance with the recommended 
procedure, the FAA created an advisory committee chartered under 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act.  The committee was comprised 
of persons representing the diverse interests affected by the
flight time rules, including persons representing flight
crewmembers, air carriers, air taxis, helicopter operators, and
the public.
     The committee met for 16 days in 1983 under the direction of
a convener/mediator and thoroughly discussed the major issues
involved in the regulation of flight time limits and rest
requirements for domestic operations under part 121 and for
operations under part 135.  Although the committee did not reach 
consensus on any particular proposal, its deliberations were
successful in narrowing the differences among parties and in
reaching substantial agreement on some issues.  In addition, the 
committee identified major areas of concern and all parties
obtained significant, new information on a subject which had been
discussed, without resolution, for years.  The committee
deliberations led to a notice of proposed rulemaking [49 FR
12136, March 28, 1984] and then to a final rule [50 FR 29306,
July 18, 1985].  The final rule reflected comments received from 
the organizations represented on the Advisory Committee and from 
others.  The final rule accomplished the following major
objectives:
          (1)  It resolved a series-of-flights problem in part 121,
domestic air carrier rules, thereby addressing many
interpretation issues;
          (2)  It established a new rest period requirement in part
121, domestic air carrier rules, for flight crewmembers scheduled
to fly 8 hours or less in 24 consecutive hours and allowed
greater scheduling flexibility, including the introduction of a
reduced rest period;
          (3)  It upgraded the requirements for all operations in part
135, particularly scheduled operations; and
          (4) It incorporated into the rules certain exemptions that
had wide applicability:  The reduction of a 10-hour rest under
part 135 under certain conditions; the extension of flight time
with augmented crews; and the special limitations needed for
helicopter medical emergency services.

ARAC Flight/Duty Working Group
     While the FAA's 1983-1985 flight time limitations rulemaking
was a step forward in dealing with rest and flight time issues,
the rulemaking was limited in its scope and did not address
either flag or supplemental operations under part 121.  The FAA
recognized at the time that flag and supplemental rules would
need to be updated because these rules contained some of the same
language and problems contained in the domestic rules that were
amended.  Furthermore, though the 1985 rulemaking clarified some 
of the flight time and rest requirements, it did not resolve the 
problems completely.  Also, since the 1985 rulemaking, the
complexity of the rules and inconsistencies associated with
various types of operations (domestic, flag, and supplemental
under part 121 and commuter and on-demand  under part 135) have
continued to make application and interpretation burdensome. A
number of petitions to amend the various sections were received
(discussed in more detail later), as well as hundreds of letters 
concerning the interpretation of rest requirements for flight
crewmembers assigned to a reserve status.  Therefore, on June 15,
1992, the FAA announced [57 FR 26685] the establishment of the
Flight Crewmember Flight/Duty Rest requirements working group
(ARAC Flight/Duty Working Group) of the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (ARAC).
      The ARAC had been established by the FAA in January 1991
[46 FR 2190, January 22, 1991] as a vehicle for convening
representatives of interested groups to assist the FAA in
addressing regulatory problems in a forum that could use, in a
less formal setting, many of the regulatory negotiation
techniques that had been used by the 1983-1985 flight time
limitations advisory committee.  The working group's task was to 
determine whether regulations pertaining to air carrier flight
duty and rest requirements are consistently interpreted and
understood by the FAA, air carriers, and pilots; to evaluate
industry compliance/practice regarding scheduling of reserve duty
and rest periods; and to evaluate reports of excessive pilot
fatigue as a result of such scheduling.  The working group was to
develop recommendations for advisory material and a regulatory
revision as appropriate.
     Between its creation on June 15, 1992, and June 30, 1994,
the ARAC Flight/Duty Working Group met on numerous occasions. 
The chairman of this working group (Dr. Donald E. Hudson of the
Aviation Medicine Advisory Service) submitted a preliminary
report on February 1, 1994, and a final report on June 30, 1994. 
 The report indicated that while the working group did not reach 
a consensus on the specific issues, the working group did agree
on four major areas that the FAA should address in future
rulemaking actions:  Absence of a duty time limitation; reserve
scheduling; back-side-of-the-clock operations; and scheduled
reduced rest.  Each of the four areas is briefly described here. 
 Three areas are specifically addressed in this rulemaking and
one, back-side-of-the-clock operations, is partially, though
indirectly, addressed.
          Continuous or indefinite duty could occur under the current 
rules if flight crewmembers complete their daily schedule when
delays encountered are beyond the control of the certificate
holder, no matter how long it extends their duty period.  The
reserve scheduling issue concerns questions such as, do the same 
rest period requirements apply to flight crewmembers assigned to 
reserve duty as the rest period requirements that apply to flight
crewmembers assigned to scheduled flights?  Back-side-of-the
clock operations refers to the question whether special duty
limitations and rest requirements should be developed for
operations that are scheduled during a flight crewmember's normal
sleep cycle.  The scheduled reduced rest issue concerns whether
certificate holders should be allowed to schedule reduced rest in
advance or whether reduced rest should only be allowed to deal
with unavoidable delays.
     Because no consensus could be reached, Dr. Hudson's final
report included proposals submitted by several members of the
working group.  It also stated that there is enough clear
scientific guidance available to assist the FAA in establishing a
regulatory "safety floor" that will both address the identified
issues and not unfairly penalize carriers economically.  The
report further stated that there is not any physiological
justification for having different work rules for part 121 and
135 operators.

NASA Research Program
     In 1980, in response to a Congressional request, the
National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research
Center created a Fatigue/Jet Lag Program to examine whether there
are safety problems due to transmeridian flying and fatigue in
association with various factors found in air transport
operations.  Since its inception, the program has pursued the
following three goals:  (1) to determine the extent of fatigue,
sleep loss, and circadian disruption in both domestic and
international flight operations;  (2) to determine the impact of 
these factors on flight crew performance; and (3) to develop and 
evaluate countermeasures to reduce the adverse effects of these
factors and improve flight crew performance and alertness.  In
1991, the NASA Ames Program was renamed the NASA Ames Fatigue
Countermeasures Program to highlight the increased focus on the
third goal.  Since the beginning of the program,  NASA has worked
in close cooperation with the FAA and with the airline industry
to collect data and to provide the findings of its extensive
research as quickly as possible.  This research is fundamental to
this proposal.  
          NASA Technical Memoranda reveal general principles pertinent
to scheduling flight crewmembers.  The memoranda include but are 
not limited to the following:
          1. Crew Factors in Flight Operations II: 
Psychophysiological Responses to Shorthaul Air Transport
Operations.  (NASA Technical Memorandum 108856, November 1994)
          2. Crew Factors in Flight Operations:  Factors Influencing
Sleep Timing and Subjective Sleep Quality in Commercial Long-Haul
Operations.  (NASA Technical Memorandum 103852, December 1991)
          3. Principles and Guidelines for Duty and Rest Scheduling in
Commercial Aviation.  (NASA Technical Memorandum, 1995)
          Copies of these memoranda have been placed in the public
docket for this rulemaking.
          These memoranda state that sleep, awake time off, and
recovery are primary considerations for maintaining alertness and
performance levels.  Adequate sleep is essential to maintain
alertness and performance, a positive mood, and overall health
and well-being.  Each individual has a basic sleep requirement.  
The average sleep requirement is for 8 hours in a 24-hour period.
Losing as little as 2 hours of sleep in a 24-hour time period can
result in acute sleep loss, which will promote fatigue and
degrade subsequent performance and alertness.  Over days, sleep
loss will accrue into a cumulative sleep debt which can only be
reversed by sleep.  An individual who has obtained required sleep
performs better even after long hours awake or during altered
work schedules. An individual who is fatigued typically shows a
decline in performance by requiring more time to complete a given
task.  Two nights of an individual's usual sleep requirement will
typically stabilize the sleep pattern and restore acceptable
levels of waking alertness and performance. More frequent
recovery periods reduce cumulative fatigue more effectively than 
less frequent ones.  For example, weekly recovery periods afford 
a higher likelihood of relieving acute fatigue than monthly
recovery periods.  Consequently, regulations that ensure minimum 
days off per week are critical for minimizing the effects of
cumulative fatigue over longer periods of time.
          The NASA findings and recommendations have been summarized
in a 1995 NASA Technical Memorandum titled "Principles and
Guidelines for Duty and Rest Scheduling in Commercial Aviation." 
  This is the first document that NASA intends to publish.  This 
first document is intended to be concise, focused on operational 
considerations and to provide specific scientific input to this
complex issue.  The second document will provide the specific
scientific references that support the principles and guidelines 
outlined in the first document.  The second document will be
longer and will focus on the scientific considerations related to
these issues.  NASA has assured the FAA that the Technical
Reports presently in the docket contain the data on which the
results and conclusions in both the first and second document are
based.  While not every NASA finding or recommendation is
specifically reflected in this proposal, the overall thrust of
this proposal is consistent with those findings and
recommendations.  Specific findings of the 1995 NASA memorandum
are discussed and where relevant referenced by paragraph number
in the discussion of specific proposals in this document. 
National Transportation Safety Board Recommendations (NTSB)
          Issues of fatigue in transportation have been of special
concern to the NTSB in all modes of transportation.  In 1989, the
NTSB made three recommendations to the Department of
Transportation (DOT) to encourage an aggressive Federal program
to address the problems of fatigue and sleep issues in
transportation safety:
          Expedite a coordinated research program on the effects of
fatigue, sleepiness, sleep disorders, and circadian factors on
transportation system safety.  (I-89-1)
          Develop and disseminate educational material for
transportation industry personnel and management regarding shift 
work; scheduled work and rest; and proper regimens of health,
diet, and rest.  (I-89-2)
          Review and upgrade regulations governing hours of service
for all modes to ensure that they are consistent and that they
incorporate the results of the latest research on fatigue and
sleep issues.  (I-89-3)
     Further NTSB recommendations were issued as a result of the 
August 18, 1993, Douglas DC-8-61 freighter crash at the Leeward
Point Airfield at the U. S. Naval Air Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba after the captain lost control of the airplane on approach. 
 The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and a post accident 
fire, and the three flight crewmembers sustained serious
injuries.  NTSB determined that among the probable causes of this
accident were impaired judgment, impaired decision-making, and
impaired flying abilities of the captain and flightcrew due to
the effects of fatigue.
     In the letter accompanying the NTSB Safety Recommendations
issued as a result of the accident, the NTSB cited the fact that 
FAA's flight and duty rules applicable to part 121 and 135
certificate holders, as interpreted, allow flight crewmembers to 
conduct flights under part 91, e.g., ferry flights for their
certificate holders following the completion of flights conducted
under part 121 or 135, without having to count these flight hours
or duty time toward the part 121 or 135 flight time duty time
limitations and rest requirements.  The NTSB concluded that "the 
accident trip was under the provisions of a combination of
separate regulations that allowed extended flight and duty times 
to be scheduled, contrary to safe operating practices."  The NTSB
went on to note that the United States and France are the only
countries in the world that base their aviation hours of service 
regulations on flight time, while most other countries base them 
on duty time or a combination of duty and flight time.
     As a result of the Guantanamo Bay accident, the NTSB issued 
the following Safety Recommendations that relate to flight and
duty time limits:
          (1) Revise part 121 to require that flight time accumulated 
in noncommercial "tail end" ferry flights conducted under part
91, as a result of 14 CFR, part 121, revenue flights, be included
in the flight crewmember's total flight and duty time accrued
during those revenue operations.  (A-94-105)
          (2) Expedite the review and upgrade of flight/duty time
limitations of the Federal Aviation Regulations to ensure that
they incorporate the results of the latest research on fatigue
and sleep issues. (A-94-106)
     The NTSB also reiterated an earlier recommendation that the 
FAA require U.S. air carriers operating under 14 CFR part 121, to
include, as part of pilot training, a program to educate pilots
about the detrimental effects of fatigue, and strategies for
avoiding fatigue and countering its effects.  (A-94-5)

Aviation Safety Reporting System
          The FAA has recently examined incident reports submitted by 
pilots to NASA_s Aviation Safety Reporting System.  Since January
1, 1986, NASA has received several reports of situations
resulting from fatigue from pilots engaged in part 121 operations
and 200 reports from pilots conducting part 135 operations. 
Although these incidents did not actually result in accidents,
they were of a sufficiently serious nature that pilots took the
trouble to file a report with NASA with the hope of gaining the
attention of the regulatory authorities.

Petitions for Rulemaking    
    The FAA has received several petitions for rulemaking on
flight, duty, and rest requirements:
    On June 1, 1989, the Air Transport Association of America
(ATA) petitioned the FAA to amend part 121, Subpart R of the FAR 
(which contains the flight time limitations for flag operations). 
This petition primarily addressed the need for rulemaking to
address the industry wide technological airplane changes that
have taken place since these rules were promulgated, such as
airplanes that require only two pilots on long distance flights
and significant improvements in cockpit automation and noise
reduction. Specifically, the petition requested that two-pilot
flight crews be allowed to fly 12 hours between required rest
periods.      
          On June 22, 1990, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA)
petitioned the FAA to amend  121.471 and 135.265 to delete the 
reduced rest provisions and to increase the required minimum rest
for flight crewmembers who are scheduled to fly fewer than 8
hours in a 24-hour period to 10 hours with at least 8 hours in a 
rest facility; propose longer rest for flight crewmembers who are
scheduled to fly more than 8 hours or who make more than eight
landings in a 24-hour period; limit duty period time to 14
consecutive hours in a 24-hour period; mandate 1 calendar day
free of duty every 7 days, even when flight crewmembers are
assigned reserve and/or training duties; and restrict air
carriers from interrupting a flight crewmember's rest by
communicating with him or her during a required rest period.
     On September 12, 1990, the Regional Airline Pilot
Association (RAPA) petitioned to amend  135.265 of the FAR to
delete the reduced rest provisions for flight crewmembers who are
scheduled to fly in pressurized aircraft during a 24-hour period 
and increase the minimum rest period to 10 hours with at least 9 
hours in a rest facility.  For those crewmembers scheduled to fly
in unpressurized aircraft, and those who make more than seven
landings in a 24-hour period, RAPA petitioned to require a 12-
hour rest with at least 10 hours in a rest facility.  RAPA
petitioned also for an amendment to  135.265(a) of the FAR which
would reduce the total flight time allowed per year to 1,000
hours and per month to 100 hours. 
          On November 25, 1991, Mr. Thomas T. Gasta, a captain on
turbo-jet aircraft, petitioned the FAA to amend the definitions
in part 1 of the FAR to include a definition of rest that would
ensure that a rest period is free from restraint and free from
responsibility for work.  Mr. Gasta's particular concern is to
ensure that reserve time is not considered rest.
          The FAA has considered each of these petitions for
rulemaking in preparing this NPRM.

Commuter Rulemaking
          The FAA has issued a proposed rulemaking that would affect
commuter operations, in general, including applicable flight time
limitations and rest requirements (Notice 95-5, 60 FR 16230;
March 29, 1995).
          The effect of Notice 95-5, if adopted, would be to apply the
part 121 domestic flight time limitations and rest requirements
to certain commuter operations within the United States and the
part 121 flag flight time limitations and rest requirements to
certain commuter operations to or from the United States.  Thus, 
that proposal would eliminate the present differences between
part 121 and part 135 flight time limitations and rest
requirements for affected commuter operations.  For all of the
reasons discussed in this preamble, the FAA has decided to
propose one set of duty period limitations, flight time
limitations, and rest requirements for flight crewmembers engaged
in air transportation (domestic, flag, supplemental, commuter and
on-demand operations).  Since, if adopted, this proposal would
eliminate all of the present differences between parts 121 and
135 in this subject area, it overrides the related proposal and
discussion in Notice 95-5.  Nonetheless, in any final rule action
based on this proposal, the FAA will consider, where relevant,
any comments relating to flight time limitations and rest
requirements submitted in response to Notice 95-5.  
          If the commuter rulemaking is issued as a final rule, the
compliance date for the flight time limitations and rest
requirements of that rule will be coordinated with the effective 
date of any final rule that may be issued as a result of this
NPRM, so that certificate holders conducting commuter operations 
will have to change their procedures for scheduling duty periods,
flight time, and rest only once.
  
The Proposal
General
     This proposal is a preventive measure designed to address
the potential safety problems associated with fatigue-based
performance decrements.  This proposal is not a response to
specific accidents, but rather to extensive data which shows a
relationship between fatigue and a decrement in performance. 
This proposed measure would place limitations on flight
crewmember hours of service by requiring certain scheduling
limitations and minimum rest periods.
          The proposed rule would simplify existing flight crewmember 
flight time limitations and rest requirements by replacing
existing Subparts Q, R, and S of part 121 with a new Subpart Q
and revising most of subpart F of part 135.  Subpart Q of part
121 would not differentiate between domestic, flag, and
supplemental operations as current regulations do, and subpart F 
of part 135 would not differentiate between commuter and on-
demand operations.  
     As stated previously, the proposed regulatory limitations
for parts 121 and 135 are based in part on knowledge of effects
of fatigue as reflected in the scientific studies done by NASA.  
These proposed amendments would be compatible with air carrier
operations and would provide reasonable, basic limitations that
are conducive to safety.     
          The FAA considered a number of options prior to proposing
those outlined in this notice.   The proposal in this notice
takes a combined approach based on duty period limitations,
flight time scheduling limitations, daily and weekly rest
requirements, and requirements for augmented flight crews.  Since
the studies concerning fatigue in flight operations could not
determine any fatigue based rationale for differentiating between
types of operations, a single proposed set of scheduling
limitations was selected for all types of operations.  The
proposal is designed to provide science based parameters for duty
limitations and rest requirements and, at the same time, be
understandable to everyone involved in flight operations.  The
proposal would establish a basic scheduling limitation for two
pilot flight crews of 14 hours of scheduled duty, 10 hours of
scheduled flight time, and 10 hours of scheduled rest. 
Certificate holders would have additional flexibility under the
proposal to increase the length of scheduled duty periods, but
only under certain conditions.  The proposed scheduled maximum 14
hour duty period, 10 hours of scheduled flight time, and 10 hour 
rest period are consistent with the NASA "Principles and
Guidelines" (Specific Principles, Guidelines, and Recommendations
2.2.3 and 2.1.2, hereafter referred to as "Recommendations") for 
2-pilot crews.  
          Although not a proposal in this notice, the FAA also
requests that commenters provide scientific data concerning the
amount of flight time that two pilot flightcrews should be
allowed to fly in a 14-hour duty period, particularly on long
range international flights that infringe on the flight
crewmember's window of circadian low (2 a.m. to 6 a.m. at the
crewmember's home base time).

APPLICABILITY 
          Proposed  121.471 and 135.261 state the applicability of
these amendments.  Subpart Q in part 121 would provide duty
period limitations, flight time limitations, and rest
requirements for flight crewmembers in domestic, flag, and
supplemental operations.  Subpart F in part 135 would provide
duty period limitations, flight time limitations, and rest
requirements for commuter and on-demand operations.
     The proposed duty period limitations, flight time
limitations, and rest requirements would also be applicable to
duty periods and flight time performed for a certificate holder
conducting part 91 operations, as specified in proposed  121.1,
121.487, 135.1, and 135.275.

TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
     Proposed  121.471 and 135.261 contain a list of terms and 
definitions applicable to the proposed amendments.
          The proposal defines "approved sleeping quarters" to mean an
area designated for the purpose of flight crewmembers obtaining
sleep as approved by the Administrator.  See Advisory Circular
121-31, "Flightcrew Sleeping Quarters and Rest Facilities" for
guidance on methods obtaining FAA approval for aircraft used in
part 121 and 135 operations.  Sleeping quarters that are already 
in use that have been determined to be adequate by the
Administrator, such as bunks or other horizontal surfaces, will
not need to be reapproved because of this proposed rule.  The FAA
recognizes that there is a difference between the term þadequateþ
sleeping quarters and þapprovedþ sleeping quarters.  Approved
sleeping quarters could include additional possibilities that
were not part of "adequate sleeping quarters" as previously
interpreted.  For example, formerly passenger seats were never
considered adequate for use as sleeping quarters.  Recently,
however, a new type of passenger seat has been developed that
meets the guidelines in AC 121-31 and therefore could be approved
for use as sleeping quarters by certificate holders operating
under part 121 or part 135.  
     The proposed rule defines four kinds of time: assigned time,
duty involving flight time (referred to as "duty period"),
reserve time, and rest (referred to as "rest period"). 
Definitions of each of these times, as well as other terms, as
proposed in  121.471 and 135.261, are discussed below.
     "Assigned time" is time when the flight crewmember is
assigned by the certificate holder to activities other than
flight duties.  Assigned time may include activities such as
deadhead transportation, training, loading baggage, taking
tickets, administrative tasks and any other assignments,
excluding reserve time and required rest periods.  Assigned time 
may be performed as part of a duty period, in which case the
proposed duty period limitations and rest requirements in 
121.473, 121.475, and 135.263 would apply.  Rest requirements
associated with assigned time that is not part of a duty period
are found in proposed  121.483(f) and 135.271(f).   
          The proposed rule defines "duty period" as the period of
elapsed time between reporting for an assignment involving flight
time and release from that assignment by the certificate holder. 
 The time is calculated using either Coordinated Universal Time
or the local time of the flight crewmember's home base.   
          The proposed rule defines two types of reserve: "reserve
time" and "standby duty."  "Reserve time" is defined as a period 
of time when a flight crewmember must be available to report upon
notice for a duty period.  The certificate holder must allow the 
flight crewmember a minimum of 1 hour or more to report.  Reserve
time is not considered part of a rest period and is not
considered a duty period.  Reserve time does not include
activities defined as assigned time.  Reserve time ends when the 
crewmember reports for a duty period, when the crewmember is
notified of a future flight assignment and released from all
further responsibilities until report time for that assignment,
or when the flight crewmember has been relieved for a rest
period. 
    "Standby duty" in the proposed rule must be treated just like
any other duty period associated with flight. Standby reserve
duty is any period of time when a flight crewmember is required
to report for a flight assignment in less than 1 hour from the
time of notification.  It also includes time when a flight
crewmember is required to report to and remain at a specific
facility (e.g. airport, crew lounge) designated by a certificate 
holder. 
    The proposed rule defines "rest period" as the time period
free of all restraint or duty for a certificate holder and free
of all responsibility for work or duty should the occasion arise.
Rest periods are considered personal time.  Rest periods are
provided to give the flight crewmember a predetermined
opportunity for rest.                            
          For example, if a flight crewmember is scheduled for a duty 
period which ends on 1200 on Tuesday and requires 14 hours of
rest and the flight crewmember is not scheduled for another duty 
period until 1200 on Thursday, then the 48 hours between duty
periods is considered a rest period. The flight crewmember's
minimum rest period requirements would be satisfied after 
14 hours from the time the duty period ended.  The air carrier
may reschedule the flight crewmember, but must ensure the minimum
rest period requirements are satisfied.  It should be noted that 
the crewmember cannot be required by the air carrier to contact
the air carrier, answer the phone, carry a beeper, remain at a
specific location or in any other way be responsible to the air
carrier during a scheduled rest period.  This does not prohibit
the flight crewmember from contacting the air carrier at his or
her own discretion.    
          For clarification purposes, the proposal also defines a
"calendar day" as 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.  The definition is needed
because certificate holders have been confused about the
application of the term.  "Calendar day" is defined in the
proposed rule in a manner consistent with past interpretations of
the rule.
     Also, for clarification purposes, the proposal defines 
"operational delays" as delays that are beyond the control of the
certificate holder such as those that would be caused by weather,
aircraft equipment malfunctions, and air traffic control delays. 
 It would not include late arriving passengers, late food
service, late fuel trucks, or delays in loading baggage, freight,
or mail, or similar events.  
FLIGHT CREWMEMBER DUTY, FLIGHT, AND REST 
     Proposed  121.473, 121.475, and 135.263 would establish
maximum scheduled duty periods and a maximum scheduled amount of 
flight time for flight crewmembers within the maximum scheduled
duty period. In addition, the proposal would establish minimum
rest requirements for flight crewmembers, including requirements 
that apply when flight crews are augmented and when on board rest
facilities are provided.
     Current rules are primarily based on flight time.  In
addition, in some cases the current rules are based on actual
rather than scheduled flight time.  The major basis for the
proposed rule is scheduled duty.  The reason for going to a
scheduled duty rule is that it is more consistent with current
studies relating to fatigue.
          For the purposes of assignments involving flight time, the
duty period includes the total elapsed time between when the
flight crewmember reports for a flight assignment, as required by
the air carrier, and when the flight crewmember is relieved from 
duty by the air carrier.  A typical duty period for a flight
crewmember would consist of pre-flight duties and post-flight
duties assigned by the air carrier.  Pre-flight safety duties
include aircraft emergency equipment checks, flight
planning/dispatch related duties, and complying with the
certificate holder's approved operations manual. 
     At least one industry study and information obtained from
crewmembers indicates that air carriers vary in how early they
require flight crewmembers to check in to begin their duty
periods and pre-flight duties.  This check-in or report time
varies depending on the type of equipment flown and the flight
destination.  Carriers typically require flight crewmembers to
arrive 30 minutes to 1 hour before scheduled departure.  For
international flights some carriers require flight crewmembers to
report for duty up to 2 hours before departure.  
          Post-flight safety duties include the post-landing duties,
safe deplaning of passengers, duties related to securing the
aircraft, and administrative responsibilities such as reporting
inoperative equipment to maintenance personnel.  Typically,
flight crewmembers are required to remain on duty after the
aircraft arrives at the gate to accomplish these post-flight
duties before they are relieved from duty.  
          A duty period may also include activities defined as
"assigned time," as discussed under "Terms and Definitions,"
above.
          Thus, a flight crewmember's duty period is not solely a
function of whether the aircraft is airborne.  Flight crewmembers
perform important safety duties during boarding and deplaning. 
This proposal, therefore, is based on duty periods that include
flight time rather than solely on flight time.  The FAA expects
certificate holders to establish realistic report and release
times to allow flight crewmembers sufficient time to complete
these essential pre-flight and post-flight safety activities.
     Proposed  121.473 and 135.263 would provide for different 
duty period limits based on the number of pilots assigned. Each
duty period would have a scheduled flight time limit and would be
followed by a required rest period.  NASA (Recommendation 2.3.6) 
recognizes that the use of additional flight crewmembers
justifies longer duty periods if the flight crewmembers are
provided on-duty sleep opportunities.  
          To allow flexibility a scheduled duty period could be
extended two hours if the extension is needed because of
operational delays.  Rest periods may be reduced by up to one
hour only if the reduction is needed because of operational
delays and then only if the pilot has not exceeded the pilot's
scheduled maximum duty-period limitations.  If a rest period is
reduced, the next rest period would have to be extended.
     Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed limitations on
duty periods and flight time and the proposed rest requirements
for pilots.
          For one- and two-pilot crews.  In proposed  135.263(b), the
basic duty period scheduling limitation for a one-pilot crew
would be 14 hours, including no more than 8 scheduled hours of
flight time.  In proposed  121.473(b) and 135.263(c), the basic
duty period limitations for a two-pilot crew would be 14 hours,
including no more than 10 scheduled hours of flight time.  The
minimum rest period for one- and two-pilot crews would be 10
hours.  The proposed 10-hour limit on scheduled flight time and
the proposed 10-hour minimum rest are consistent with NASA
Recommendations 2.3.3 and 2.1.1, respectively.
          These proposed duty periods for one- and two-pilot crews
could be extended to 16 hours due to operational delays.  The
rest periods may be reduced to 9 hours if the actual duty period
is not more than 14 hours and if the reduction is needed due to  
operational delays.  If the rest period is reduced the next rest 
period would have to be a minimum of 11 hours.  A duty period
extended due to operational delays may involve longer than
scheduled flight time. Table 1
Insert chart for pilots            Longer Duty Period for a 3-Pilot Crew.  Under proposed 
 121.473(c) and 135.263(d), the certificate holder may schedule
up to a 16-hour duty period with up to 12 hours of flight time if
3 pilots are assigned to the flight.  The required rest would be 
14 hours.  This duty period could be extended to 18 hours due to 
operational delays.  The required rest could be reduced to 12
hours if the actual duty period is not more than 16 hours.  If
the rest is reduced the next rest would have to be 16 hours.
          Longer duty period for three-pilot flightcrews with approved
sleeping quarters.  Under proposed  121.473(d) and 135.263(e), 
if three pilots are assigned and if approved sleeping quarters
are provided, the scheduled duty period can be up to 18 hours
with a scheduled flight time limit of 16 hours.  The required
rest would be 18 scheduled hours.  Each pilot must be given an
opportunity to rest in approved sleeping quarters.  The duty
period could be extended to 20 hours due to operational delays.  
The rest could be reduced to 16 hours if the actual duty period
is not more than 18 hours.  If the rest is reduced, the next rest
would have to be 20 hours.
          Longer duty period if outside the U.S., four pilots, and
approved sleeping quarters.  Under proposed  121.473(e) and
135.263(f), if the duty period involves one or more flights
outside the 48 contiguous states, if four pilots are assigned,
and if approved sleeping quarters are provided, the scheduled
duty period can be up to 24 hours with 18 hours of scheduled
flight time.  Each pilot must be given an opportunity to rest in 
flight in approved sleeping quarters.  The required scheduled
rest following the duty period would be 22 hours.  The duty
period could be extended to 26 hours due to operational delays.  
The rest could be reduced to 20 hours if the duty period is not
greater than 24 hours.  If the rest is reduced, the next rest
would have to be 24 hours.  
          Reporting for a duty period.  The effect of the proposal is 
that if a flight crewmember reports for duty, including standby
duty, as required and finds that the flight assignment was
incorrectly scheduled or that the flight is delayed or canceled, 
a duty period nevertheless would have begun.  For example, a
flight crewmember may report for duty as scheduled, only to find 
that the assigned report time is incorrect and that duty actually
begins 2 hours later.  The carrier could either keep the flight
crewmember on duty or release the flight crewmember for a
complete rest period under the applicable section of this
proposed rule.  While the rule language does not spell out in
detail this kind of example, or application, this is how the
concept of duty period would work.  
          Extension of duty periods.  The intent of this proposed rule
is to ensure that flight crewmembers are provided adequate
opportunity to rest through properly scheduled duty periods,
flight times, and rest.  Regular delays on certain routes or
deviations from certain schedules would indicate that the
schedules need to be adjusted to comply with the proposed
limitations.  The proposal acknowledges that certain delays, such
as adverse weather, cannot be anticipated.  A flight crewmember
would not be considered to be scheduled for flight time or a duty
period in excess of flight time or duty period limitations if the
flights to which he is assigned are scheduled and normally
terminate within the limitations, but due to operational delays
(such as adverse weather conditions, equipment malfunctions, and 
air traffic control) are not at block out time expected to reach 
their destination within the scheduled time.  Operational delays 
do not include late arriving passengers, late food service, late 
fuel trucks, delays in handling baggage, freight, or mail, or
similar events.  (See proposed  121.473, 121.475, 121.479,
135.263, 135.267.)
          The FAA is proposing limiting the extension of any scheduled
duty period due to operational delays to no more than 2 hours. 
If at any time during a duty period it is determined that, due to
operational delays, a scheduled flight will not terminate within
the scheduled termination of that duty period plus 2 hours, then 
the flight crewmembers must be relieved of duty before initiating
that flight segment.  They may be scheduled for another flight as
long as that flight is scheduled to terminate within the original
scheduled duty period limitations plus two hours.  The FAA
believes that 2 hours provides flexibility in the event of
operational delays and also limits the possibility of flight
crewmembers being on a continuous duty period even when the duty 
period is extended due to circumstances beyond the control of the
certificate holder.  The limit on flight time hours is discussed 
elsewhere in this preamble.  
          Certificate holders would be expected to recognize when
certain schedules need adjustment due to regularly experienced or
seasonal delays.  
  
Augmented flight crews
          The longer scheduled duty periods that would be allowed
under proposed  121.473(c), (d), and (e) and  135.263(c), (d), 
and (e) are contingent upon the assignment of additional pilots
in order to maintain safety by distributing the workload and
permitting more rest.  This will ensure that pilots are alert and
can contribute to safe operations.  It is important to note that 
if a pilot is scheduled for a duty period longer than 14 hours,
the appropriate number of additional pilots would have to be
present on every flight segment within that duty period.  In
practical terms, the FAA expects that this would occur on larger 
aircraft and, generally, long-haul operations with relatively few
flight segments.  This result would be consistent with the intent
of the proposal and consistent with current industry practice.  
          It should be noted, however, that if an a flight crew with
additional, non-required pilots is assigned a duty period of 14
hours or less, the certificate holder may follow  121.473(b) or 
 135.263(b), (i.e., provide a rest period of 10 hours).
          Proposed  121.473(d) and (e) would require opportunities
for flightcrew members to rest and availability of approved
sleeping quarters for duty periods of more than 16 hours.  The
provision for additional flight crewmembers and for on board
sleeping quarters takes into account the extended time flight
crewmembers may be on duty to complete long range flight
segments.  Existing rules, ( 121.483, 121.485, 121.507,
121.509, 121.521, 121.523) require augmented flightcrews for
longer duty periods. 
     Existing rules in some cases, under present  121.523(c), 
allow a scheduled duty period of 30 hours; however, the FAA
believes that 24 hours should be the limit of any scheduled duty 
period.  
          This proposal does not provide for substituting flight
engineers for pilots.  Rather the augmentation of pilots must
take place regardless of the number of flight engineers assigned.
          Reduction of the rest period.  In order to provide
additional flexibility, the FAA is proposing to allow the
reduction of rest due to operational delays.  The rest period may
be reduced only if the maximum scheduled duty period limitation
has not been exceeded or extended.  Table 1 provides information 
on reduced rest periods followed by compensatory rest periods.

Flight Engineers  
          Proposed  121.475 would provide similar requirements for
flight engineers.  Table 2 provides a summary of the proposed
limitations on duty periods and flight time and the proposed rest
requirements for pilots and flight engineers.   Present part 121 
rules for domestic operations do not contain separate flight time
limitation requirements for flight engineers.  The flag and
supplemental operations rules ( 121.493 and 121.511) deal with 
flight engineers by referencing other sections within the
applicable subpart.  To avoid any possible confusion as to which 
flight time limitation rules apply to flight engineers, the FAA
proposes in  121.475 to address flight engineers separately.  Table 2
Insert table for flight engineers RESERVE AND STANDBY ASSIGNMENTS
          Current regulations do not specifically cover the issue of
reserve time and standby duty.  Within the air transportation
industry two types of generic reserve assignments have developed. 
One type, usually referred to as "standby reserve," is
essentially the same as a duty period, and as discussed below
would be treated as duty for duty period limitation and rest
requirement purposes.  The other type, here called "reserve time"
is not considered part of a rest period and is not considered
part of a duty period and therefore would be dealt with
separately under this proposal.  Proposed  121.477 and 135.265 
provide reserve assignment requirements.  
     Under the proposal a standby duty period must be scheduled
in accordance with proposed  121.473, 121.475, or 135.263.  A
standby duty ends when the duty period associated with a
subsequent flight assignment ends or the flight crewmember is
relieved from standby duty for a scheduled rest period.
          Standby duty periods are assigned because the air carrier
believes that some time within that period the flight 
crewmember will be needed for a flight assignment and must report
for flight assignment within less than 1 hour of being notified. 
 Standby duty also includes time when a flight crewmember is
required to report to and remain at a specific facility (e.g.,
airport, crew lounge) designated by a certificate holder. 
Usually flight crewmembers are assigned to standby duty at the
airport.  In addition, since the industry has indicated that they
treat standby as duty, this proposed definition should not impose
any additional burdens on certificate holders.  It is because of 
the momentary anticipation of a flight assignment, which prevents
a pilot from planning for adequate rest, that standby assignments
are treated as duty periods.                               
          The proposed standby duty period would be treated as a duty 
period that is associated with flight, regardless of whether the 
flight crewmember is ever assigned to flight time during that
standby duty period or not.  Standby duty periods would be
scheduled in accordance with proposed duty period limitations,
flight time limitations, and rest requirements.  A standby duty
period commences when the flight crewmember is placed on
 standby duty and ends when the flight crewmember is relieved of 
duty, whether that duty is standby or flight.  Following standby 
duty, the flight crewmember must be scheduled for and must
receive the same amount of rest as he or she would receive if he 
or she accumulated flight time, even if there is no actual flight
time.                         
          Reserve time is a period of time when a flight crewmember is
not on duty but nonetheless must be available to report upon
notice for a duty period.  During reserve time a flight
crewmember typically goes about his or her off duty routine,
obtaining rest as needed during each 24 hour period.  Reserve
time is not considered part of a rest period, is not considered
part of a duty period, and is not considered assigned time. 
Reserve time ends when the crewmember is released, the crewmember
is notified of a future duty period assignment and released from 
all further responsibility until the report time for that
assignment, or the crewmember reports for a duty period.  The
certificate holder must allow the flight crewmember a minimum of 
1 hour to report.
          Often flight crewmembers are on reserve for days at a time
and are given 10 or more hours notification prior to a duty
period assignment.  However, there are times when a flight
crewmember is given fewer than 10 hours notification and may not 
be completely rested.  Some flight crewmembers arise early in the
morning and may have been awake for many hours at the time they
receive notification of an evening flight.  These flight
crewmembers may not have an opportunity for a complete rest
period before the flight assignment.  The same may be true of a
flight crewmember who does not awaken until the middle of the
afternoon and receives fewer than 10 hours notification of a duty
period which starts after midnight.
          Since it is difficult to predict when an individual flight
crewmember sleeps and when he or she awakens, no attempt has been
made in the proposal to correlate the amount of notice a flight
crewmember should receive with the time of day.  Rather, the
emphasis is placed on the flight crewmember's receiving enough
notice to provide an opportunity for rest before the duty period 
assignment.  If a flight crewmember receives at least 10 hours
notice there would be enough time for the flight crewmember to be
fully rested before reporting for a duty period of 14 hours. 
However, under proposed  121.477(b) and 135.265(b), when flight
crewmembers receive fewer than 10 hours notice for a duty period 
assignment, there is a reduction in the length of that duty
period.  While it could be possible for a flight crewmember to
receive 10 hours rest before being placed on reserve and then
given 10 hours of notification in order to serve a 14-hour duty
period, the FAA believes that efficient crew scheduling will
minimize the possibility of this happening.  Table 3 shows for
each proposed amount of notification time the proposed
corresponding duty period limitation.  
     Proposed  121.477(b)(2) and 135.265(b)(2) would provide
another option under which a flight crewmember could be given a
minimum 6-hour period of protected time for each 24 hours of
reserve time.  During this 6-hour period of protected time the
certificate holder would not be able to contact the flight
crewmember or assign the flight crewmember to any duty.  The 6-
hour period must be assigned before the flight crewmember begins 
the reserve time assignment and must occur at the same time
during each 24-hour period during a reserve time assignment.  Any
duty period assignment must be scheduled to be completed within
the 18-hour reserve time, exclusive of the 6 hours of protected
time.  The length of the duty period and the subsequent rest
period must be in accordance with  121.473, 121.475, or
135.263.  The FAA believes that this option would allow
flexibility for the certificate holder while giving the flight
crewmember sufficient certainty to plan for and obtain adequate
rest.  While the 6 hours of protected time must be the same 6
hours for any reserve assignment, it could be a different 6 hours
for subsequent reserve assignments (e.g., a subsequent reserve
assignment following duty or assigned time). 
          Under either reserve time assignment option, the flight
crewmember must be notified of which option has been selected
before the beginning of the reserve time assignment.
     Although NASA recommends a predictable and protected 8-hour 
sleep opportunity (2.6.2), the FAA believes that the above
described options are practical and in most instances will
provide at least an 8-hour rest opportunity.  Either the flight
crewmember is provided an opportunity for a full 10-hour rest
period or, in the case of a short notice, the flight crewmember's
duty period is limited, or the flight crewmember is able to plan 
each day with the certain knowledge there will be a minimum 
6-hour period for undisturbed rest.  Thus, these options would
protect against excess fatigue without eliminating the objective 
of the reserve system and without placing a significant economic 
burden on the industry.  
          There have been a number of complaints stating that in some 
cases pilots were unable to obtain enough rest because they were 
given a reserve assignment immediately following a duty period
and then were called for duty before they had received an
adequate rest.  While under these proposed rules such a practice 
would be a violation because of the requirement for a minimum
rest period between duty periods, the FAA has included in
proposed  121.477(b) and 135.265(b) a requirement that a flight
crewmember must be given a 10-hour rest period before beginning a
reserve time assignment.  Sections 121.483(c) and 135.271(c)
state that required rest periods can occur concurrently so this
proposed requirement may not require an additional rest period.
          The FAA believes that both of these methods of handling
reserve time assignments would provide more flexibility, would be
less costly for certificate holders, and would be more likely to 
ensure adequate rest than the current rules.  Under the lookback 
provision in the current rules, for instance, a flight crewmember
on reserve could not take a flight assignment unless he or she
had a scheduled rest period in the previous 24 hours.  There have
been situations in which certificate holders have professed
experiencing difficulties in implementing rest requirements for
flight crewmembers on reserve.  Recognizing this, the FAA has
developed this proposal.  However, if this proposal on reserve
time assignments is not issued as a final rule, the FAA intends
to ensure that the current rule, as interpreted, is being
correctly implemented.

Other Proposals on Reserve Time Presented During ARAC Discussions

Southwest Airlines proposed a system under which the total of
reserve time and "time engaged in scheduled air transportation"
could not exceed 18 hours (16 hours if this period included any
time during the hours between 0300 and 0459).   In addition,
Southwest proposed that reserve time between 0001 and 1000 not be
included if the air carrier did not contact the crewmember during
that period.   One option presented by the Air Line Pilots
Association is similar to Southwest's proposal.  ALPA would not
allow reserve time and duty time to exceed 16 hours.  A 14-hour
maximum would apply when the duty time is not contained with the 
period between 0500 and 0259.  

The FAA has several concerns about this approach.  First, we
believe it will be difficult to understand and to apply
consistently.  More importantly, although it appears to provide
for some reductions in duty time, depending on the time of day a 
crewmember is notified of a flight assignment, it does not
expressly provide for any dedicated rest opportunity.  Moreover, 
it is not clear exactly what would be encompassed by Southwest's 
term "time engaged in scheduled air transportation."   The FAA
requests that commenters supporting this approach provide
additional details about this alternative and operational
scenarios on how it would be applied.  Commenters should provide
information on how this alternative does or does not provide the
flexibility of the options proposed in this NPRM, and how this
alternative provides an equivalent level of safety to the options
proposed here.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters proposed two
alternatives for reserve duty.  The first alternative proposes
that a crewmember could be assigned a reserve period of 24
consecutive hours if the crewmember is given 11 hours or more
advance notification for a flight assignment.  The second
alternative would allow a crewmember to be assigned a reserve
period of up to 12 consecutive hours if the crewmember is given
less than 11 hours of advance notification.  In this case, the
total flight time and duty time could not exceed 17 hours.  The
FAA believes that both of these options unnecessarily limit the
scheduling flexibility of the operator and that both would
greatly increase operators' costs while providing no increase in 
safety when compared with the reserve options proposed in this
NPRM.

The Air Transport Association would give the operator five
alternatives for dealing with reserve time.  (1) The carrier
could give the employee at least eight consecutive hours of rest 
during any 24 hour period on reserve;  
(2)  The carrier could give the crewember at least 10 hours of
advance notice of any assignment, at which point the crewmember
would be released on rest until the time to report;  (3)  The
carrier could not assign the crewmember on reserve to flights
between midnight and 5:00 a. m.; (4)  The carrier could assign
the crewmember on reserve to no more than two flight segments; or
(5) The carrier could establish alternative policies and
procedures to ensure that a crewmember will not be assigned to a 
flight unless that crewmember is "adequately rested for that
flight assignment."

The first three ATA proposals are generally similar to this NPRM. 
The NPRM contains the option of blocking out a protected period
of at least six hours during which the crewmember could not be
disturbed by the employer.  This is less restrictive than ATA's
proposal (1), although it involves a slightly longer period than 
would be provided by proposal (3).  Like ATA's proposal (2), the 
NPRM would provide for advance notice of assgnments.  However,
the NPRM is not limited to a single cut-off of 10 hours' notice. 
Carriers would be permitted to assign crewmembers to duty periods
that vary with the amount of advance notice, down to as little as
4 hours' notice.  Since ATA's proposal number (4) does not
address rest at all, it is not included in the NPRM.  Proposal
number (5) sets no minimum standards for rest, and it, too, is
therefore not part of this NPRM.

The Air Line Pilots Association, in addition to the alternative
describe above, offered a proposal somewhat similar to that of
ATA.  ALPA's proposal appears intended to provide more stability 
for pilot rest periods; it would not permit carriers to move the 
eight hour rest period more than three hours in any 24-hour
period.  Similarly, ALPA proposed a six-hour protected period,
comparable to the five-hour period proposed by ATA.  Our comments
on ATA's proposal apply to ALPA's as well, i.e., we believe we
have accomodated much of their objectives.

Another proposal advanced during the ARAC discussions came from a
labor/pilot group consisting mainly of Part 135 pilots.  This
proposal would limit any combination of reserve time and duty
periods to no more than 18 hours or any duty assignment to no
more than 14 hours.  After being on reserve for 18 hours, a
crewmember would have to receive a 10-hour rest period before
accepting another reserve assignment.  This proposal is not
included in the NPRM because it unnecessarily limits the air
carrier's reserve scheduling flexibility and provides no increase
in safety when compared with the options proposed in the NPRM.INSERT NOTIFICATION CHARTADDITIONAL DUTY PERIOD LIMITATIONS AND REDUCED REST
          Current  121.471(g) and 135.263(d) state that a flight
crewmember is not considered to be scheduled for flight time in
excess of the flight time limitations if the flights to which he 
or she is assigned normally terminate within the limitations, but
due to circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder
(such as adverse weather conditions) are not at block out time
expected to reach their destination within the scheduled time. 
These requirements do not specify a limit to the flight time
extensions under these circumstances.
          In theory, under the current rule language, duty periods
could be extended for unlimited periods of time as long as the
extension was due to operational causes beyond the control of the
air carrier such as weather, mechanical problems, and Air Traffic
Control situations.  This could result in flight crewmembers who,
after the first flight of a flight schedule in a duty period,
would be as much as 6 hours late, but would still continue with
the flight schedule.  The NASA Scientific Working Group
determined that extended duty periods with no limit on the amount
of time which the duty period could be extended was one of the
major fatigue related problems with current flight crewmember
assignments (Recommendations 1.4, 2.1.2, and 2.3.3).  Therefore, 
the FAA has proposed to place a limit on the amount of time that 
a duty period may be extended regardless of the nature of the
delay.              
          Proposed  121.473, 121.475, and 135.263 would allow
certificate holders an extension of a duty period of not more
than 2 hours beyond the maximum scheduled duty period if the
extension is due to operational delays not under the control of
the certificate holder.  The proposed requirements would also
allow the reduction of the required rest if the flight crewmember
has not exceeded the required duty period (without the
extension), if the flight crewmember is provided with a longer
subsequent rest period as specified, and if the reduction in rest
is due to operational delays.  Reduced rest periods may not be
scheduled in advance.
          Proposed  121.479(a) and (b) and 135.267(a) and (b) would 
state that a flight crewmember is not considered to be scheduled 
for a duty period or flight time in excess of the duty period or 
flight time limitations if the duty period or flight times to
which the flight crewmember is assigned are scheduled and
normally terminate within the limitations, but due to operational
delays are not at block out time expected to reach their
destination within the scheduled duty period or flight time.
          In addition, proposed  121.479(a) and 135.267(a) state
that a flight crewmember may not serve as a crewmember in an
aircraft if, at block out time for the purpose of flight, that
flight crewmember's actual elapsed duty time plus duty time
scheduled for the next flight will cause the flight crewmember to
exceed the applicable duty period limitations by more than two
hours.  However, there is no limit on actual flight time accrued 
during a duty period, if the additional flight time is due to
operational delays, but in any event the duty time limit may not 
be extended by more than 2 hours.
          The proposal would allow a certificate holder the
flexibility to schedule the same crew on a flight even when that 
flight is going to be late; however, it would not allow flight
crewmembers to be scheduled indefinitely even when the
circumstances which caused them to be late are beyond the control
of the certificate holder.  During a scheduled flight assignment,
if the combination of scheduled times for the remaining flights
would mean that the maximum scheduled duty period would be
exceeded by more than two hours, the flight crewmember would have
to be rescheduled so that the remaining duty period to which he
or she is assigned will not exceed the maximum scheduled duty
period by more than two hours.  This can be done by assigning a
flight crewmember to a new flight schedule or by reassigning the 
original scheduled flights so the flight crewmember is relieved
of duty before commencing the flight which would extend beyond
the maximum scheduled duty period plus two hours.  

WEEKLY AND MONTHLY FLIGHT TIME LIMITATIONS
     Proposed  121.481 and 135.269 would provide limits on the 
amount of actual flight time which a flight crewmember can accrue
in a calendar month and in any 7 consecutive calendar days. 
These proposed rules would replace current  121.471(a),
121.481(d), (e), and (f), 121.503(d) and (e), 135.265(a) and
135.267(a).  Although NASA states that there is insufficient
scientific information to provide guidance in this area, these
limits are proposed to counter any harmful effects of any
possible cumulative fatigue.
          In addition to the scheduled flight time limits which are
integrated into the scheduled duty periods, weekly and monthly
flight time limits are proposed as follows:
           Proposed  121.481(a) and 135.269(a) would limit a flight
crewmember to 32 flight hours in any 7 consecutive calendar days.
           Proposed  121.481(b) and 135.269(b) would limit a flight
crewmember to 100 flight hours in any calendar month.  
          In practice, this means that, before beginning to fly on any
particular day, a flight crewmember's actual accrued flight time 
for the previous six days must be added to the flight time
scheduled to be flown that day.  If the result is fewer than 32
hours, the flight crewmember may begin and complete the day's
scheduled flying even if delays (which are beyond the carrier's
control) encountered during the day eventually cause the total
time to exceed 32 hours.  The same principle applies for the
calendar month flight time limitation.
          Current regulations place varying limits on the amount of
time that a flight crewmember can serve.  The variance is based
on the type of operation.  Flight crewmembers given flight
assignments under part 121 for domestic operations ( 121.471(a))
are limited to 30 flight hours in any 7 consecutive days.  The 7 
consecutive day limit for flag operations is 32 flight hours 
( 121.481(d)) and there is no 7 consecutive day limit for
supplemental operations.  Under  135.265(a) in scheduled
operations the amount of flight time which may be accrued in any 
7 consecutive days is 34 hours and there is no 7 consecutive day 
limit for unscheduled operations.  Sections 121.471(a) and
121.481(e) restrict flight crewmembers serving in domestic or
flag operations conducted under part 121 to 100 hours in any
calendar month and  121.503(d) restricts flight crewmembers
serving in supplemental operations to 100 flight hours in any 30 
consecutive days.  Section 121.521(c) allows certain flight
crewmembers to accrue 120 hours in any 30 consecutive days. 
Section 135.265 allows flight crewmembers serving in part 135
scheduled operations to accumulate 120 flight hours in any
calendar month.  
          In addition,  121.471(a) restricts flight crewmembers
engaged in domestic operations conducted under part 121 to 1000
hours in any calendar year.  Section 135.265 allows flight
crewmembers serving in part 135 scheduled operations to serve as 
crewmembers during flight for 1200 hours in any calendar year,
while  135.267 allows 1,400 flight hours in a calendar year for 
unscheduled operations.  Sections 121.503, 121.521, 135.267, and 
135.269 also provide other calendar quarter and 90 consecutive
day limitations.
          The proposed rule would establish a common 32 hour
limitation in any 7 consecutive days, a 100 hour limitation in
any calendar month, and would eliminate quarterly, 90 consecutive
day and calendar year limitations.
          The proposed rule does not provide a yearly flight time
limitation because the monthly limit would effectively restrict
flight time to 1200 hours in a calendar year.  Although the NASA 
document recommends the annual flight time limitations be
decreased a percentage of the monthly requirement, it also states
that there is not enough scientific data to provide specific
guidance in this area.  The FAA believes that this proposal
contains sufficient additional rest provisions (i.e. 36 hours in 
7 days, 10 hour rest periods, and 48 hours for crossing multiple 
time zones).  Because of the increase in rest requirements, the
FAA believes that safety would not be adversely affected because 
of a lack of a yearly flight time limit which is less than the
sum of all the monthly flight time limits.  At the same time the 
lack of annual flight time limits will provide flexibility and
the opportunity for increased productivity.  In view of the fact 
that there is no scientific data to suggest a discrete yearly
limit and the fact that the requirement for rest has been
increased, the FAA believes the proposed rule will provide the
appropriate level of safety.   
       The FAA believes that there is no longer justification for
the different weekly, monthly, and annual flight time limitations
for different types of operations and that proposing a single
limitation standard provides adequate safeguard against the
effects of cumulative fatigue, eliminates rules that do not have 
an adequate scientific rationale, and also simplifies the overall
limitations.  The FAA asks for comments from the public about the
maximum number of hours a flight crewmember should be allowed to 
fly under this chapter.  Further, the FAA asks for comments
regarding the impact of this rule on seasonal flying.
ADDITIONAL REST REQUIREMENTS
    The proposed rule would continue some of the rest
requirements which are contained in the existing regulations. 
Proposed  121.483(a) and 135.271(a) would state that no
certificate holder may assign any flight crewmember and no flight
crewmember may accept any duty period or flight time with the
certificate holder unless the flight crewmember has had at least 
the minimum rest period required.  Proposed  121.483(b) and
135.271(b) would state that no duty could be assigned during any 
required rest period.  This proposed requirement would preclude
any carrier from assigning any type of duty, including nonflight 
assignments (such as training, assigned time, reserve time,
standby duty, or ground duties), to any flightcrew member during 
a required rest period.  These proposed requirements are the same
as those in current  121.471(c)(4) and (e) and  135.263(a) and 
(b).
          Proposed  121.483(c) and 135.271(c) would be a new
requirement to clarify that rest periods required under the
subpart can occur concurrently with any other required rest
period.  For instance a required 10-hour rest could occur
concurrently with the 36-hour rest required under proposed 
 121.483(e) and 135.271(e).  Further, under the proposal, if a 
flight crewmember is not serving in assigned time, reserve time, 
standby duty or a duty period, that crewmember would be in a rest
period.
          Proposed  121.483(d) and 135.271(d) would be a new
requirement stating that a rest period required in  121.473,
121.475, or 135.263 may be reduced only because of operational
delays.  The reductions may not be scheduled in advance.  
          Current  121.471 and 135.265 require each domestic air
carrier operating under part 121 and each certificate holder in
scheduled operations under part 135 to relieve each flight
crewmember engaged in scheduled air transportation from all
further duty for at least 24 consecutive hours during any 7
consecutive days.  Proposed  121.483(e) and 135.271(e) would
require that each flight crewmember who is assigned to one or
more duty periods, standby duty, or reserve time shall be
provided a rest period of at least 36 consecutive hours during
any 7 consecutive calendar days.  The proposed 36-hour rest could
be taken during a layover.  Thirty-six hours of rest is the
amount of time recommended by the NASA Scientific Working Group
(2.1.3); further the FAA believes that flight crewmembers should 
be provided at least 36 consecutive hours rest during any
7 consecutive calendar days any time they are assigned to reserve
regardless of the nature of the reserve.  This allows flight
crewmembers the time to plan for and obtain a thorough rest so
that they are not fatigued if they receive a duty period
assignment.  

The Air Transport Association proposed, during the ARAC
discussions, that this provision be applied over a period of 168 
consecutive hours rather than 7 consecutive calendar days.  We
beleive that it would be more difficult for crewmembers and
carriers to maintain records in this fashion.  However,
commenters are invited to address this issue more fully in their 
comments.  If adequate justification is shown for using 168 hours
rather than 7 calendar days, the final rule may incorporate that 
proposal.  Commenters should note that any change in this
provision would likely require corresponding changes in the
flight time limitations proposed in  121.481 and 135.269.

          Proposed  121.483(f) and 135.271(f) would require
certificate holders to provide each flight crewmember assigned to
assigned time, as defined in proposed  121.471 and 135.261, a
minimum rest period of 10 hours before the commencement of a
subsequent duty period.  This rest period may occur concurrently 
with another required rest period.  This proposed rest
requirement is needed to address situations in which a flight
crewmember is assigned to one of a group of activities that are
neither rest nor part of an assignment involving flight time, but
which could contribute to crewmember fatigue (e.g. training,
deadhead transportation, etc.).  The intent of this proposed rule
is for flight crewmembers to have the opportunity to obtain
sufficient rest in order to be able to perform assigned flight
duties, regardless of whether the fatigue was caused by flight
duties or by other activities for the certificate holder. 
However, certificate holders have the option of counting assigned
time as part of a duty period and scheduling the appropriate rest
period for that duty period or of counting assigned time
exclusively as assigned time and ensuring that the flight
crewmember is given 10 hours of rest before commencing a duty
period.  The 10 hours is consistent with the other required rest 
periods. 
          For example, a flight crewmember could be deadheaded to a
new location at the beginning of a duty period and then begin a
schedule flight assignment.  In this case the deadhead
transportation would be counted as part of the duty period. 
Alternatively, after completing a duty period, a flight
crewmember could be deadheaded back to his or her home base
before beginning the required rest period.  In this case the
deadhead transportation could be considered assigned time. 
Performing assigned time after the completion of a duty period
would be permitted as long as the flight crewmember received the 
minimum rest required for that duty period or 10 hours, whichever
is greater, before the next duty period.
     Proposed  121.483(g) and 135.271(g) would establish a
requirement for a certificate holder to provide each flight
crewmember at least 48 consecutive hours of rest upon return to
the flight crewmember's home base after completion of one or more
duty periods that terminate in a time zone or zones that differs 
from the time zone of the flight crewmember's home base by 6 or
more hours and the flight crewmember remains in that time zone or
zones for at least 48 consecutive hours.  The accumulation of the
48 hours may be in one or more time zones but each of these time 
zones must be 6 or more hours from the flight crewmember's home
base.  The flight crewmember must receive this rest before
beginning a subsequent duty period.  The home base is determined 
by the certificate holder and is where that crewmember is based
and receives schedules.  The present rules make no provisions for
rest periods based on time zones.  The NASA Scientific Working
Group data and subjective comments from crewmembers indicate
there is a need to recognize the additional fatigue effects of
crossing time zones (2.1.4).  The literature indicates that some 
flight crewmembers experience, at times, additional fatigue from 
crossing as few as two time zones; while others do not report the
same fatigue until they have crossed many more time zones.  The
FAA recognizes the complicated problem of addressing each
individual flight crewmembers circadian rhythm; nevertheless by
establishing a minimum rest requirement at the home base for
flight crewmembers who cross 6 or more time zones the FAA
believes these flight crewmembers will be given an opportunity to
once again establish what is for that flight crewmember the
normal sleep awake cycle.  The proposed rest requirement is a
minimum requirement and is provided to give the flight crewmember
an opportunity for rest.  The flight crewmember should use this
time to obtain the needed rest so that he or she will be rested
when called upon for the next duty period.  The FAA will issue
advisory material based on scientific studies to assist air
carriers and flight crewmembers in dealing with fatigue related
issues. 

DEADHEAD TRANSPORTATION
          Current  121.471(f) and 135.263(c) specify that time spent
in transportation, not local in character, that a certificate
holder requires of a flight crewmember and provides to transport 
the crewmember to an airport to which he or she is to serve on a 
flight as a crewmember, or from an airport at which the flight
crewmember was relieved from duty to return to his or her home
base is not considered part of a rest period.  This type of
transportation is commonly called "deadhead" transportation. 
Proposed  121.485 and 135.273 would be the same as the current 
requirement except that in addition it would specify that for
duty period limitation purposes the certificate holder and flight
crewmember must consider deadhead time as assigned time or as
part of a duty period associated with flight.
          
OTHER FLYING FOR A CERTIFICATE HOLDER
          Proposed  121.487 and 135.275 establish duty period and
flight time limitations for other flying for a certificate
holder, including flying under part 91.  Flight crewmembers and
certificate holders must ensure that any duty periods and flight 
assignments assigned by the certificate holder are scheduled,
assigned, and performed under the applicable requirements of
parts 121 and 135 (14 CFR 121.473, 121.477, 121.479,121.481,
121.483, and 14 CFR 135.263, 135.265, 135.267, 135.269, and
135.271) even if the flight is not conducted under part 121 or
135.  In addition, any flight crewmember who is employed by two
or more air carriers or commercial operators must ensure that any
duty periods and flight assignments are scheduled, assigned and
performed under the applicable rules of parts 121 and 135.  In
other words, when certificate holders assign flight crewmembers
to conduct ferry flights, or other flights under part 91, this
flight assignment is treated just as any other duty period
involving flight.
          This proposal is based on NTSB recommendation A-94-105,
which was issued as a result of the Guantanamo Bay accident,
discussed above under "NTSB Recommendations"  and the FAA's
belief that other flying for a certificate holder such as
training flights for a 121 or 135 certificate holder may cause
both short term and cumulative fatigue which may adversely effect
that flight crewmember's flight duties performed under parts 121 
and/or 135.  This would include flying for more than one part 121
and/or 135 certificate holder.
Proposed Effective Date for Final Rule
          The FAA is proposing an effective date of 60 days after
these proposals are published as a final rule.  By that date all 
certificate holders operating under part 121 or part 135 would
have to begin scheduling all flight time duty periods and rest
periods in accordance with the new requirements.  However, as
mentioned above under "Commuter Rulemaking," the FAA intends to
coordinate the effective date of this rulemaking with the
compliance date of the commuter rulemaking, so that certificate
holders conducting commuter operations will have to change their 
procedures for scheduling flight time, duty periods, and rest
periods only once.  
          The FAA requests comments on the length of time needed
between the issuance of the final rule and its effective date.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several
economic analyses.  First, Executive Order 12866 directs that
each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned interpretation that the benefits of the intended
regulation justify its costs.  Second, the Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the economic effect of
regulatory changes on small entities.  Third, the Office of
Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effect of
regulatory changes on international trade.  In conducting these
analyses, the FAA has determined that this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) would probably generate benefits and cost
savings that are greater than its costs and is "a significant
regulatory action" as defined in the Executive Order.  The FAA
also estimates that the NPRM would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.  No part of the
proposed rule is expected to constitute a barrier to
international trade.  These analyses, available in the docket,
are summarized below.

This proposal would amend existing regulations to establish one
set of duty period limitations, flight time limitations, and rest
requirements for flight crewmembers engaged in air
transportation.  Currently, these limitations and requirements
differ across the various sectors of the industry (e.g., part
121, part 135).  In addition, the FAA is required to consider
alternatives to the proposed rule when the following
circumstances are met:
-    The regulatory action is designated as a "significant
     regulatory actionþ (as defined by Executive Order 12866), and
-    The regulatory action is designated as having a significant
     impact on a substantial number of small businesses, nonprofit
     groups, or airports operated by small governmental
     jurisdictions.
The FAA has determined that the potential economic impacts of the
proposed rule are sufficiently large that both of these criteria
are satisfied.  Accordingly, two alternatives will be discussed
in the section entitled þAnalysis of Alternativesþ below.


COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

PROPOSAL

As mentioned above, the main thrust of the proposal is to amend
existing regulations to establish one set of duty period
limitations, flight time limitations, and rest requirements for
flight crewmembers engaged in air transportation.  The proposal
would establish a basic scheduling limitation for 2 pilot crews
of 14 hours of scheduled duty and 10 hours of scheduled rest. 
The maximum length of duty periods permitted would increase as
the number of pilots increases.  The proposal would also revise
limits on the amount of flight time which a flight crewmember can
accrue in a duty period, in any 7 consecutive calendar days, and
in a calendar month.  The maximum duty period limits would be
decreased in most cases for part 121 and part 135 operators, and
the required length of rest periods would be increased.  These
changes are expected to impose unquantifiable costs on
unscheduled part 135 operators.

Although the maximum length of duty periods would generally
decrease under the proposal, the maximum allowable flight times
for pilots operating 2-pilot aircraft (no flight engineer) would
increase from 8 to 10 hours.  This provision should create the
potential for substantial cost savings for both part 121 and 135
operators.

The FAA determined that 2 provisions of the proposed rule could
impose substantial quantifiable costs.  Another provision could
impose substantial costs on the commuter operators, but could not
be quantified.  The potential economic impacts on the air taxi
operators of these provisions could not be quantified at this
time.  The most costly provision applies to the scheduling and
duty assignments of reserve pilots.  A reserve pilot must be
available to report upon notice for a duty period with one hour
or longer of notice.  The proposal would require that the maximum
length of a duty period be reduced in those cases when less than
10 hours of notice for a duty period assignment is received.  The
proposal would also provide another option under which a flight
crewmember could be given a regularly scheduled minimum 6 hour
protected time within each 24 hours of reserve time.  

The other provision which would impose substantial quantifiable
costs would require that "ferry" flight time used to reposition
aircraft be counted the same as time accrued in part 121/135
revenue operations for the purpose of determining compliance with
FAA limitations on duty periods and flight time limitations. 
Another provision that would increase the minimum required rest
periods between flight duty periods might impose substantial
costs on the commuter operators, but they cannot be quantified
without additional data.  The provisions pertaining to reserve
pilot scheduling might also impose substantial costs on air taxi
operators, but these costs could not be quantified.

COST ANALYSIS

As described in more detail in the Regulatory Impact Analysis,
the FAA has relied heavily on surveys of a limited number of
operators to develop its analysis.  The FAA is interested in
comments on the representativeness of the data used for
extrapolation to the entire affected population.  Where
commenters believe these survey data do not reflect the
circumstances/responses for operators generally, the FAA welcomes
any and all relevant data supporting such claims.

The FAA also seeks comments on its methodology, assumptions,
and/or data used to estimate the following:

          (1) the efficiency gains from the increase in allowable
          flight time from 8 to 10 hours.
          
          (2) the likely operator response to the reserve pilot
          requirements (i.e., the likelihood of operators choosing
          between canceling flights and adding pilots),
          
          (3) the cost to operators and passengers of flight
          cancellations and of adding pilots, and
          
          (4) the potential safety benefits from reduced fatigue.


Part 121 Air Carriers

The FAA estimated the economic impact of each provision of this
proposed rule.  Some of the provisions by themselves were
estimated to entail substantial compliance costs, whereas others
have the potential for affording substantial cost savings to
operators.

The proposed rule is estimated to impose discounted costs of
$842.03 million on part 121 operators over the next 15 years, but
these costs are expected to be offset by the cost savings.  The
total potential discounted cost savings from increased
productivity were estimated at $1.72 billion  over this period. 
The net discounted compliance cost savings of the proposed rule
would therefore amount to $877.90 million over this period.  The
cost savings would result if operators take advantage of
opportunities afforded by the proposal to more efficiently
schedule their existing workforce, which could enable them to
reduce their plans for hiring new pilots by 3,348 pilots over the
next 15 years.

          Costs

The FAA determined that the primary cost of implementing the
reserve pilot scheduling and duty time regulations would consist
of the cost of reassigning some scheduled airline pilots or
hiring new pilots to assure adequate coverage of flights that
would otherwise have to be canceled or delayed.  Other provisions
of the proposal, however, may allow operators to use on-line
pilots more intensively; therefore, the need for additional
reserve pilots is likely to be satisfied by reassigning on-line
pilots that would become available because of enhanced
productivity.  In addition, a relatively small number of flights
might be canceled.  

These cost estimates were based on the least cost combination of
reserve pilot scheduling options for each operator based on the
nature of its flight operations, such as the amount of advance
notification provided reserve pilots and duty period durations. 
The FAA estimates that the part 121 scheduled operators would
have to hire an additional 500 pilots, representing a 1% increase
in their current pilot staffing level, thereby increasing their
recurring annual salary costs by $41.29 million.  In addition,
the FAA estimated that the flight cancellations resulting from
decreased flexibility in scheduling reserve pilots would impose
societal costs (the value of delayed passenger time) amounting to
$8.12 million per year.  The total potential cost of the reserve
pilot regulation was therefore estimated at $49.40 million
annually after the first year the proposed rule were in effect
for part 121 scheduled carriers.  In the first year, this annual
cost would be increased by $9.26 million to $58.66 million to
capture initial training costs.

The FAA determined that the reserve pilot regulation would also
impose substantial costs on part 121 unscheduled or
"supplemental" air carriers.  The economic impact on these air
carriers is expected to be greater than for the scheduled part
121 carriers because of the less predictable nature of their
operations, which doesn't allow them to give as much advance
notification of flight assignments to their reserve pilots.  The
FAA estimated that approximately 330 additional pilots,
representing about 4% of their present pilot staffing level,
would need to be hired by these air carriers at a recurring
annual cost of $24.02 million.

The FAA determined that the proposed restriction on "ferry"
flights would have very little, if any, impact on scheduled part
121 operators.  These proposed restrictions, however, could have
a substantial economic impact on part 121 unscheduled operators,
which are more likely than the scheduled operators to conduct
these operations because of the greater distance between crew
bases and destination points of their revenue flights.  The FAA
estimated that these operators would have to hire an additional
235 pilots (3% increase in current pilot staff) to avoid major
disruptions in their flight schedules, entailing recurring annual
costs amounting to $17.04 million.  

The total recurring annual potential compliance costs (reserve
pilot and þferry flightþ restrictions) for unscheduled or
supplemental operators were therefore estimated at $41.06
million.  The first year initial training costs for these
unscheduled air carriers were estimated to add $10.10 million to
annual costs in the first year.

In summary, the total first year annual compliance costs for all
part 121 air carriers of the reserve pilot regulation and
restriction on ferry flights were estimated at $110.28 million. 
Societal costs resulting from canceled flights were estimated to
comprise $8.12 million of this total.  These costs were estimated
based on the time that passengers on canceled flight would be
delayed, which the analysis assumes would be two hours.  Total
discounted costs were estimated at $842.46 million over the
period from 1996-2010.

          Cost Savings

The FAA expects that these costs would be more than offset by
cost savings afforded the scheduled part 121 operators by the
opportunity to more effectively utilize their flight crewmembers. 
The potential cost savings for the unscheduled part 121 air
carriers, however, are not expected to be of a sufficient
magnitude to outweigh the proportionally higher potential costs
that were estimated for this sector of the industry.  Under the
proposal, both scheduled and unscheduled air carriers could
increase the maximum permitted flight times within individual
duty periods from 8 to 10 hours for 2-pilot crews.  

The potential productivity gains from this provision should
enable scheduled part 121 air carriers to maintain their current
schedules with fewer pilots and transfer some pilots from active
or nonreserve to reserve status.  The decrease in the anticipated
need for pilots among the scheduled air carriers is expected to
substantially outweigh any potential increased need for pilots
among the unscheduled air carriers.  In other words, the overall
need for pilots in future years should decrease because the
positive economic effects resulting from increased productivity
are expected to outweigh the negative economic impacts of the
need for more reserve pilots.

Data collected by the FAA indicate that domestic air carriers do
not fly their crewmembers close to the maximum permitted current
limit of 100 hours per month.  The average monthly flying time
for the scheduled air carriers is 60 hours.  The part 121
unscheduled operators tended to fly their crewmembers from 40-60
hours per month.  In fact, most unionized air carriers are
prevented by labor contracts from flying their crewmembers more
than 75-80 hours per month.

If this proposed rule is adopted as an amendment, most air
carriers would likely attempt to take advantage of the
opportunity to utilize their crewmembers more effectively.   The
increase from 8 to 10 hours in the maximum permitted flight hours
2-pilot crews could fly within individual duty periods should
provide an incentive for air carriers to increase the daily
flight hours and hence monthly flight hours of their crews and
decrease the amount of duty time which is not flight time.  The
FAA determined that air carriers would most likely be able to
increase utilization of their pilots by 4% on average (which
would amount to an additional 2 flight hours per month per pilot
in most cases).

Air carriers would realize these productivity gains only to the
extent that their pilot salary costs would not increase.  Such an
assumption appears warranted for the following reasons.  The FAA
estimated that about 10% of the pilot salary cost of the major
air carriers is for nonproductive time (i.e., time within a duty
period that is not devoted to actually flying the airplane).  Air
carriers frequently pay pilots for this nonproductive time at a
reduced hourly rate, as established by formulas in their
contracts.  The proposal would allow them to significantly reduce
this nonproductive time by permitting an increase in maximum
flight hours from 8 to 10 hours within a shorter duty period.

Many unionized part 121 air carriers would probably have to
renegotiate their contracts in order to reduce the amount of
nonproductive time for which they are currently paying. 
Renegotiation would not be required, however, in order to add
about 2 hours on average to monthly pilot flying hours because
actual flying hours are currently considerably lower than the
maximum range of 75-80 hours under most contracts.  In addition,
the nonunionized air carriers would in theory have a greater
potential for increasing flight hours flown by their crewmembers
because their maximum limits on flight hours tend to be closer to
the current regulatory maximums of 1,000 hours per year.  Under
the proposal, the maximum monthly flight time of 100 hours per
month would effectively allow 1,200 hours of flight time per
year, thereby affording them the potential of a 20% increase in
productivity (nonunionized air carriers account for 16% of the
operations flown by all part 121 air carriers).  This analysis,
however, only assumes a 4% increase in productivity.

The FAA estimated that a 4% overall productivity enhancement
would afford part 121 carriers overall total cost savings
amounting to $3.07 billion (present value, $1.72 billion) over
the next 15 years.  These estimates are based on an expected
decrease of 3,348 new pilots hired over this period and an
average loaded salary of $82,572 for part 121 scheduled and
$72,600 for part 121 supplemental.  In addition, initial training
costs of $18,516 for part 121 scheduled pilot and $17,908 for
part 121 supplemental pilot were used in this analysis as in the
cost analysis.

This estimate should be regarded as an lower bound for potential
cost savings arising from the increase in pilot productivity. 
Productivity cost savings above 4% are theoretically possible;
however, due to any salary increases that unions may negotiate,
the air carriers may not be able to achieve all of these savings. 
In any event, air carriers would have a greater opportunity to
limit pay for nonproductive time under the proposal, as noted
above, which currently amounts to a significant part of their
total salary costs.  The FAA does not have sufficient information
to assess the interplay of these factors in determining pilot
salaries and requests comments from the public on this issue.

Longer proposed flying hours would also allow air carriers to
reduce the number of 3-pilot crews in favor of 2-pilot crews. 
The FAA estimates an additional savings of 200 pilots, with
annual net cost savings which could amount to $20.40 million in
the first year and $16.54 million in subsequent years.  These
potential cost savings were estimated at $119.62 million
(discounted) over a 15-year period.  Consequently, total cost
savings of the proposed rule for part 121 air carriers is
expected to amount to $3.32 billion (present value, $1.87
billion) over the next 15 years.


Part 135 Scheduled Air Carriers 

The proposed rule is estimated to impose discounted quantifiable
costs of $56.75 million on part 135 carriers over the next 15
years, but these costs could be offset by cost savings.  The
total potential cost savings of the proposed rule are expected to
amount to $94.04 million over the next 15 years.  The net cost
savings, which would result from an expected net reduction of 353
new pilots hired over the next 15 years, could therefore amount
to $50.68 million over this period.  This conclusion is
contingent on the assumption that these operators would be able
to modify their flight schedules so as to avoid expenses
associated with longer minimum rest periods without significantly
affecting revenues.

          Costs

The FAA estimated that the reserve pilot provisions of the
proposal would result in the hiring of 152 additional pilots in
order to avoid having to cancel flights because of inadequate
reserve pilot resources.  The increased annual cost for the
industry was estimated at $6.12 million.  In addition, these
operators are expected to incur incremental initial training
costs amounting to $1.06 million in the first year the proposed
rule is in effect, increasing annual compliance costs to $7.18
million in that year.  These costs would amount to a discounted
$56.75 million over a 15-year period.

          Cost Savings

Part 135 scheduled airlines would reap potential cost savings
amounting to $145.04 million (present value, $84.76 million) over
the next 15 years. Although these operators currently tend to
utilize their pilots more intensively than the part 121 operators
(i.e., 74-89 hours), they still utilize them well under the
proposed regulatory maximum of 100 hours a month.  The potential
for a 4% increase in productivity would still remain.  The fact
that a considerably smaller portion of the part 135 pilot
workforce is unionized would remove that possible constraint to
increased productivity.  

These potential cost savings are based on a projection that these
operators would need 353 fewer pilots at an average annual loaded
salary of $40,280 that was used in the analysis of costs.  In
addition, initial training costs of $6,948 per pilot would be
saved.


BENEFITS

The FAA has promulgated flight time limitation rules that contain
rest requirements for certain operations and weekly and monthly
limits on the number of hours of flight time in an effort to
protect flight crewmembers from work-related fatigue.  The issue
did not receive much publicity until May 1994, when the NTSB
cited pilot fatigue as a probable cause in an accident when the
captain lost control of a DC-8 freighter while approaching the
U.S. Naval Station Airbase at Guantanomo Bay, Cuba in August 18,
1993.  Prior to that time, this factor had never been cited by
the NTSB as a probable cause in an accident involving part 135 or
121 operations.

In its investigation, the NTSB noted that the flight crew had
been on duty about 18 hours and had flown about 9 hours at the
time of the accident.  Under the proposed rule, this flight would
have been illegal because the maximum length of a duty period for
a 3-person flight crew on an airplane lacking appropriate
sleeping quarters is 16 hours.  In addition, the company had
intended to further extend this flight by having the crew ferry
the airplane back to Atlanta after the plane had landed at
Guantanamo Bay, which would have resulted in a total duty time of
24 hours.  The NTSB report specifically noted that the flight
crewmembers had experienced a disruption of circadian rhythms and
sleep loss, which resulted in fatigue that had adversely affected
performance during the critical landing phase.  

The National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) Ames
Research Center has been studying this issue since 1980 and has
published a number of studies on it.  These studies have
established a relationship between long duty periods and fatigue
and between fatigue and a deterioration in performance.  

It is very difficult to quantify the potential safety benefits of
this proposed rule because of the scarcity of accidents that have
been attributable to pilot fatigue.  The NTSB has not focused on
this issue until quite recently in its accident investigations. 
The FAA believes that the investigation of the effects of fatigue
on pilot performance should not be limited to a review of
relevant accidents.  A better understanding of this issue can be
gained from examining incident reports submitted by pilots to the
National Aeronautical and Space Administration's Aviation Safety
Reporting System (ASRS).  Since January 1, 1986, ASRS has
received 21 reports of unsafe incidents resulting from fatigue by
pilots engaged in part 121 operations and 200 reports from pilots
conducting part 135 operations.  Although these incidents did not
actually result in accidents, they were of a sufficiently serious
nature that pilots filed a report with NASA with the hope  of
gaining the attention of the regulatory authorities.

NASA has sponsored some research into the issue of the
relationship between fatigue and performance decrements based on
information contained in these incident reports. The researchers
found that about 21% of the reports citing air transport flight
crew errors were related to the general issue of fatigue.  The
researchers selected a control or comparison group of incident
reports citing these problem areas but where fatigue was not an
apparent factor.  Most of the incidents in both data sets
involved altitude or clearance operational deviations (e.g.,
taking off or landing without clearance).  The deviations within
the fatigue set tended to occur more frequently during the more
critical descent, approach, and landing flight phases.  This
finding was expected because fatigue is most likely to set in
towards the end of a flight or work day.  Another key finding was
that duty period length and workload level were most frequently
cited as being responsible for the fatigue.  

The FAA has quantified the economic value of all major accidents
involving the part 121 air carriers and part 135 air carriers
over the 1985-1994 period that were attributable to pilot error. 
For the part 121 analysis, the FAA examined the seating capacity,
average passenger load, and the average replacement cost of a
representative sample of both narrow body and wide body aircraft. 
The FAA examined the same factors in estimating the cost of a
part 135 accident.

For the part 121 analysis, the FAA assumes that an average
airplane costs $14.75 million in 1994 dollars and carries 107
people (101 passengers, 3 flight crewmembers, and 3 flight
attendants).  In order to provide the public and government
officials with a benchmark comparison of the expected safety
benefits of rulemaking actions over an extended period of time
with estimated costs in dollars, the FAA currently uses a value
of $2.7 million to statistically represent a human fatality
avoided.  The values for serious and minor injuries are $518,000
and $38,000, respectively.  For the part 135 analysis, the FAA
used the same assumptions regarding the value of a human life and
injuries.  The amount of airplane damage and severity of injuries
was based on a review of NTSB reports of all accidents involving
10-30 seat aircraft over the period from 1985-1994.

Based on these assumptions, the FAA estimated that the economic
value of the 71 serious accidents involving pilot error used in
part 121 scheduled operations that were involved in serious
accidents over the 1985-1994 period at $1.896 billion. 
Projecting this total from 1996 to 2010 yields a discounted
$1.151 billion.  The comparable total for the 8 serious accidents
involving pilot error used in part 121 supplemental operations
that were involved in serious accidents over this time period was
$273.9 million.  Projecting this total from 1996 to 2010 yields a
discounted $166.3 million.  The corresponding total for the 71
aircraft involving pilot error used in part 135 operations with
10 to 30 seats that were involved in serious accidents over that
period was $602.32 million.  Projecting this total from 1996 to
2010 yields a discounted $365.73 million.

The NASA research study summarized above revealed that 21% of
pilot error incidents were related to fatigue.  Applying this
proportion to the total discounted value of the pilot error
accidents, using the assumptions noted above, one could conclude
that fatigue resulted in accidents valued at $398.24 million
(present value, $241.81 million) for part 121 scheduled
operations, $57.52 million (present value, $34.92 million) for
part 121 supplemental operations, and $126.49 million (present
value, $76.80 million) for part 135 operations over a 15-year
period.  These estimates could be used to provide some idea of
the potential safety benefits of this proposed rule, assuming it
is 100% effective in preventing these types of accidents.

COST SAVINGS AND BENEFITS

Initial annual quantifiable compliance costs for part 121
scheduled, part 121 supplemental, and scheduled part 135 air
carriers were estimated at $58.66 million, $41.16 million and
$7.18 million, respectively.  Subsequent annual quantifiable
compliance costs were estimated at $49.40 million, $41.06 million
and $6.12 million, respectively.  Over the period from 1996 to
2010, costs would amount to $750.33 million (present value,
$458.63 million), $625.99 million ($383.40 million) and $92.89
million (present value, $56.75 million), respectively.

For part 121 scheduled operators, these compliance costs should
be more than offset by cost savings that are projected to result
from productivity enhancements for the scheduled part 121
carriers.  The same conclusion may apply to the part 135
operators as well in view of the potential magnitude of the
unquantifiable costs.  But cost savings expected to accrue to the
part 121 supplemental carriers are not expected be sufficient to
offset potential costs for this sector of the industry.

The estimates for the scheduled part 135 air carriers do not
include the potential costs of the proposed general limitations
on flight duty and rest periods, which are expected to be fairly
significant, although not quantifiable at the present time.  On
the other hand, these estimates do not take account of potential
cost savings as air carriers gain more experience in implementing
the various combinations of the available options, which should
in theory result in the selection of the most cost effective
option.  The extent to which these potential impacts would offset
each other cannot be determined on the basis of the available
data.

These estimates also do not include the potential costs of the
proposed rule for air taxi operators, which could not be
quantified.  The FAA expects that the costs of the reserve pilot
restrictions would probably not be substantial for this sector of
the industry because the majority of the operators should be able
to adopt the second reserve pilot scheduling option without major
operational disruptions.  The FAA does not have sufficient
information to estimate the potential compliance costs for this
sector of the industry if the þother commercial flyingþ
restrictions in the proposal are adopted.  The potential for cost
savings would appear to be more limited for these operators
because of the point-to-point and geographically restricted
nature of their operations, which would tend to limit the length
of flight assignments.

The FAA has quantified the economic value of all major accidents
involving the part 121 fleet and part 135 fleet over the 1985-
1994 period that were attributable to pilot error.  Based on this
value and the proportion of incidents with similar causal factors
where pilots were affected by fatigue, the FAA estimated that if
proposed rule were 100% effective at eliminating fatigue as a
factor in accidents, it could prevent accidents involving part
121 scheduled operations valued at $242 million and part 121
supplemental operations at $35 million over a 15-year period. 
The same methodology yielded an estimate of $77 million for the
potential effectiveness of the proposal in preventing part 135
accidents.  It is important to note that it is unlikely that this
proposal would be 100% effective, in part because it addresses
duty and rest times, but does not require pilots to rest.  The
FAA is unable to develop an estimate of effectiveness of this
proposal in reducing fatigue-related incidents, but welcomes data
and methodologies that may assist such an effort.

The table below compares the costs, potential benefits, and cost
savings sections.  The FAA therefore concludes that the proposed
rule would be cost beneficial for the part 121 scheduled
operators, sector of the air transportation industry, would
probably be cost beneficial for the entire part 121 sector of the
air transportation industry, and could be cost beneficial for the
scheduled part 135 operators as well, provided the unquantifiable
compliance costs for the commuters do not exceed about $127.5
million (discounted) over a 15-year period.

The FAA does not have sufficient information at this time to
evaluate the cost effectiveness of this proposal for air taxi
operators.  A more definitive overall conclusion would not be
appropriate in view of the lack of data pertaining to how the
affected air carriers would modify their operations in order to
comply with the proposed rule and also to take advantage of the
opportunities to increase pilot productivity.  The FAA has
decided to issue this proposed rule with the expectation that
additional data that can clarify these issues will be
forthcoming.



[INSERT CHART]



This rulemaking should be considered complimentary to the
Commuter Rule and the Air Carrier Training Program final rule. 
One of the goals of these three rulemaking actions is to prevent
the 67 accidents that represent the accident-rate gap between
part 135 commuter operators and part 121 operators. The FAA
estimates that over the next 15 years, closing this gap would
prevent 67 accidents at a present value benefit of $350 million.

In terms of the accident rate gap, the benefits of this NPRM are
a part of this total benefit.  However, it is not possible to
allocate that benefit among the three rulemaking actions because
it difficult to determine which rulemaking action would prevent a
given accident.  For example, individual accidents may be
prevented by any one or a combination of several factors such as:
þpreventing the occurrence of a problem with an airplane in the
first place (Commuter rule);
þproviding more or better crew training to properly respond to
the problem after it occurs (Air Carrier Training Program rule);
þproviding a dispatcher to help identify a problem before it
becomes a potential accident (Commuter rule);
þand ensuring pilots are not over-worked and tired (Pilot Rest
and Duty NPRM).

The Commuter Rule only addresses a portion of the necessary
requirements to close the accident-rate gap.  If the $51 million
present value in net cost savings of this rule ($107 million in
cost savings minus $56 million in costs) is combined with the
cost of the Commuter Rule, $75 million, and the cost of Pilot
Training, $34 million, the total cost, $58 million (-$51 + $75 +
$34), is still less than the estimated $350 million benefit of
eliminating the accident-rate gap.  These rules combined need
only be 17 percent effective to be cost-beneficial.  The $77
million in potentia