Legal Interpretations
Xifo 1991
Summary
The Question
Which FAA interpretation governs the legality of part 135 flights in the grace month when a crewmember fails to complete the test or flight check that month?
Background
The National Air Transportation Association pointed to conflicting FAA interpretations of the part 135 grace month provisions, including one to the Eastern Region Helicopter Council that it read as making grace-month flights retroactively noncompliant.
The FAA’s Interpretation
The FAA's November 10, 1971 interpretation answers it. The FAA called that interpretation of the 14 CFR part 121 grace month provisions its long-standing position, equally applicable to 14 CFR part 135, and said the Eastern Region Helicopter Council had been made aware of the correct interpretation. The FAA did not restate the 1971 position. The FAA also said its legal offices are the authorized issuers of legal interpretations.
- Requester
- Xifo
- Issued
- October 21, 1991
- Subject
- Air Carrier & Commercial Operations
Regulations Cited
Page 1
October 21, 1991
Mr. Richard W. Xifo
Manager, Flight Operations
National Air Transportation Association
4226 King Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22302
Dear Mr. Xifo:
This is in response to your request for an interpretation dated August 14, 1991.
You ask the following questions:
1. Please explain why there are conflicting interpretations of the Part 135 grace month provisions?
Answer. Occasionally, as in any large organization, with far flung operations, inconsistencies in interpretations do occur. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is constantly seeking to minimize such occurrences, and we are grateful to members of the public who point out such inconsistencies.
Which of the enclosed interpretations is correct regarding the legality of any flights conducted under FAR Part 135 during the grace month if a crewmember fails, for any reason, to complete the test or flight check during the grace month?
Answer. The enclosed interpretation, dated November 10, 1971, states the FAA's long standing position regarding this subject, and should answer your question. Although it addresses the Part 121 grace month provisions, it is equally applicable to the Part 135 grace month provisions.
3. If the interpretation provided by Ms. Alkalay is in fact correct, could you explain how a flight performed in a grace month can be in compliance and then become retroactively noncompliant the following month? Please be as specific as possible so that we may attempt to clarify this issue with Part 135 operators at our compliance seminars. Frankly we fail to see how, as Ms. Alkalay alleges, a flight can be conducted in compliance one day and then become retroactively noncompliant at some future date.
Answer. We have made Ms. Alkalay aware of the 1971 interpretation. She has assured us that the Eastern Region Helicopter Council, Inc., to whom her original interpretation was written (question and answer #16), has been made aware of the correct interpretation.
Page 2
4. In correspondence from Mr. Walden, he states that "an interpretation of the FAR by an Assistant Chief Counsel serves as an interpretation for the Chief Counsel, and as such applies with equal force to the same issue in all the FAA regions." Does this mean that the only official or legally binding interpretations of the FAR are those issued by the Chief Counsel, region Assistant Chief Counsel or FAA attorney?
Answer. In general, the answer is the FAA's legal offices are the duly authorized issuers of legal interpretations. By policy of the Office of the Chief Counsel, legal interpretations of the flight time and rest regulations are issued only by the Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division, or the Chief Counsel.
We hope the information in this letter will be helpful to you.
Sincerely,
Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division
Regulations Referenced
Snapshot retrieved August 6, 2026.