[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 126 (Thursday, July 1, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35902-35908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-16794]


      

[[Page 35901]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Parts 21, 27, 29, and 91



Flight Plan Requirements for Helicopter Operations Under Instrument 
Flight Rules; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 35902]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 21, 27, 29, and 91

[Docket No. FAA 98-4390; Notice No. 99-10]
RIN 2120-AG53


Flight Plan Requirements for Helicopter Operations Under 
Instrument Flight Rules

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: On September 2, 1998, the FAA proposed to change instrument 
flight rules (IFR) for helicopters by revising alternate airport 
weather planning requirements, weather minima necessary to designate an 
airport as an alternate on an IFR flight plan, and fuel requirements 
for helicopter flight into IFR conditions. The comment period closed on 
October 2, 1998. In response to concerns raised by commenters regarding 
discrepancies in the original proposal between flight plan information 
required for helicopters and airplanes, the use of weather minima 
necessary to designate an airport as an alternate on an IFR flight 
plan, and the inconsistent use of meteorological terminology, the FAA 
is revising the original proposal to include commenters' suggestions 
and correct inadvertent omissions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 2, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this document should be delivered or mailed, in 
duplicate, to: U.S. Department of Transportation Dockets, Docket No. 
FAA-98-4390, 400 Seventh St., SW, Rm. Plaza 401, Washington, DC 20590. 
Comments may also be sent electronically to the following internet 
address: [email protected]. Comments may be filed and examined in 
Room Plaza 401 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William H. Wallace, General Aviation 
Commercial Division (AFS-804), Flight Standards Service, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 
20591; telephone (202) 267-3771.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the 
proposed action by submitting written data, views, or arguments, as 
they may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy, 
economic, or federalism impact that might result from adopting the 
proposals in this notice are also invited. Substantive comments should 
be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments must identify the regulatory 
docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the DOT Rules 
Docket address specified above.
    All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each 
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed 
rulemaking, will be filed in the docket. The docket is available for 
public inspection both before and after the comment closing date.
    All comments received on or before the closing date will be 
considered by the Administrator before taking action on this proposed 
rulemaking. Comments filed late will be considered as far as possible 
without incurring expense or delay. The proposals contained in this 
document may be changed in light of the comments received.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
submitted in response to this document must include a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments 
to Docket No. FAA-98-4390.'' The postcard will be date-stamped and 
mailed to the commenter.

Availability of the SNPRM

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem 
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section 
of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-
3339), the Government Printing Office (GPO)'s electronic bulletin board 
service (telephone: 202-512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee bulletin board service (telephone: (800) 322-2722 or 
(202) 267-5948).
    Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/
avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the GPO's web page at http://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara for access to recently published rulemaking 
documents.
    Any person may obtain a copy of this document by submitting a 
request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 
ARM-1, 800 Independence Ave., SW, Washington DC 20591, or by calling 
(202) 267-9680. Communications must identify the notice number or 
docket number of this SNPRM.
    Persons interested in being placed in the mailing list for future 
rulemaking documents should request from the FAA's Office of Rulemaking 
a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
Distribution System, that describes the application procedure.

Background

    On August 28, 1998, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) which proposed to amend the general operating rules for 
helicopters by revising alternate airport weather planning 
requirements, weather minima necessary to designate an airport as an 
alternate on an IFR flight plan, and the fuel requirements for 
helicopter flight into IFR conditions (63 FR 46834; September 2, 1998). 
The NPRM also proposed to withdraw Special Federal Aviation Regulation 
(SFAR) No. 29-4, Limited IFR Operations of Rotorcraft. This SFAR 
provides operators with a means to conduct approved limited IFR 
operations in rotorcraft that are not otherwise certificated for IFR 
operations.
    The FAA issued the proposal because flight planning requirements 
(including alternate airport weather minima) for helicopters and other 
aircraft are virtually identical even though their operating 
characteristics are substantially different. The only distinction 
between the flight planning requirements for helicopters and other 
aircraft is addressed in 14 CFR 91.167. That section specifies 
different requirements for the amount of fuel helicopters and other 
aircraft must carry after completing a flight to the first airport of 
intended landing.
    Helicopters, however, fly shorter distances at slower airspeeds 
than most other aircraft, and they generally remain in the air for 
shorter periods between landings; therefore, a helicopter is less 
likely to fly into unanticipated, unknown, or unforecast weather. The 
relatively short duration of the typical helicopter flight means that 
the departure weather and the destination weather are likely to be 
within the same weather system. The original notice therefore proposed 
to revise the flight planning requirements for helicopter IFR 
operations to take into account the unique operating characteristics of 
these aircraft.
    In general, commenters supported the provisions contained in the 
notice because the proposal not only recognized the unique operating 
characteristics of helicopters but also provided operators with an 
additional margin of safety by easing access of helicopters to the IFR 
system. Commenters also agreed that the proposal would provide 
qualitative

[[Page 35903]]

benefits by reducing noise on the ground and by increasing the ability 
of operators to more efficiently use helicopters. Some of the 
commenters, however, raised technical issues that were not addressed in 
the original notice. The FAA has therefore modified the original 
proposal in response to these comments and is issuing this SNPRM with a 
30-day comment period.

Discussion of Comments and Changes to the Original Proposal

General

    Thirty-nine comments were received on the NPRM, all of which were 
generally supportive of the proposal. Commenters praised the NPRM for 
its potential to enhance safety by facilitating the expansion of 
helicopter operations under IFR in marginal weather conditions, thereby 
reducing weather-related accidents. Commenters also stated that 
adoption of the proposal would enable operators to better utilize their 
IFR-equipped helicopters, transport clients more efficiently, and 
reduce noise on the ground. Seven commenters however stated that 
certain technical issues were not adequately addressed by the FAA in 
the proposal. These concerns are addressed in detail in the following 
discussion. In addition, since the FAA's economic analysis did not 
anticipate any cost of compliance or need for additional equipment or 
training, comments on both the quantitative and qualitative benefits of 
the proposal were favorable also.

Removal of SFAR No. 29-4

    A number of commenters addressed the proposed removal of SFAR No. 
29-4, Limited IFR Operations of Rotorcraft. One commenter stated that 
in the past, his company used the provisions of the SFAR to ``prove IFR 
capabilities in a then non-IFR certified helicopter,'' and the company 
``does not want to lose this capability.'' Two other commenters stated 
that the FAA should retain the provisions of the SFAR for a period of 
time (for either a year or a ``reasonable time'') after the other 
provisions of the NPRM are implemented as a final rule. The commenters 
believe that this course of action would enable the FAA and industry to 
determine whether the SFAR is needed or has outlived its usefulness and 
then reconsider its removal. The FAA does not believe this action is 
necessary and is again proposing to remove the SFAR.
    The SFAR was originally adopted to permit the FAA to collect 
operational data to study the feasibility of limited rotorcraft 
operations in IFR conditions. Since the adoption of the SFAR, the FAA 
has addressed the issue of helicopter IFR operations and issued 
regulations that govern both the certification and operation of 
helicopters under IFR. These regulations are found in Appendix B--
Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter Instrument Flight, contained in 
both 14 CFR parts 27 and 29. Operational regulations permitting 
helicopters to engage in IFR operations are found in 14 CFR parts 91 
and 135.
    Paragraph 5 of SFAR 29-4 states that ``new applications for limited 
IFR rotorcraft operations under SFAR No. 29 may be submitted for 
approval until, but not including the effective date of Amendment No. 1 
of the Rotorcraft Regulatory Review Program. On and after the effective 
date of Amendment No. 1, all applicants for certification of IFR 
rotorcraft operations must comply with the applicable provisions of the 
Federal Aviation Regulations.'' The effective date of Amendment No. 1 
was March 2, 1983. Concurrent with the effective date of Amendment No. 
1, regulations establishing airworthiness criteria for helicopter 
instrument flight became effective. All new applicants for 
certification of helicopter IFR operations must now comply with the 
provisions of Appendix B of parts 27 or 29, as applicable, and part 91. 
Because the FAA has established certification criteria and operational 
limitations for helicopters engaged in IFR operations, the need to 
prove IFR capabilities in a non-IFR certified helicopter is no longer 
warranted. The changes made to the regulations since the promulgation 
of SFAR No. 29 therefore no longer make its provisions necessary.

Alternate Airport Weather Minima

    Commenters stated that the notice did not provide alternate airport 
weather minima reductions for helicopters when airports that have non-
standard alternate airport weather minima are used as alternate 
airports. Standard alternate airport weather minima are stated in 
current 14 CFR 91.169(c)(1)(i) and (ii), (i.e., for a precision 
approach procedure a ceiling of 600 feet and a visibility of 2 statute 
miles; for a nonprecision approach procedure, a ceiling of 800 feet and 
a visibility of 2 statute miles).
    The commenters stated that helicopter operators should not be 
subject to the same restrictions imposed on operators of other types of 
aircraft by the use of nonstandard alternate minimums. The commenters 
noted that these restrictions are generally imposed to facilitate the 
conduct of circle-to-land operations. Due to the ability of helicopters 
to fly any available instrument approach, regardless of wind direction, 
and to land at the approach threshold regardless of runway length by 
pivoting into the wind, if necessary, just before touchdown, the 
commenters asserted that helicopter operators should not be restricted 
by these non-standard alternate minimums. They further stated that 
helicopter operators therefore should be allowed to use lower-than-
standard alternate weather minima, regardless of whether standard or 
nonstandard alternate airport weather minima are specified on part 97 
approach plates.
    The FAA agrees with these comments. Historically, the FAA has 
permitted helicopter operators to use procedures different from those 
permitted to be used by other aircraft. 14 CFR part 97 for example, 
allows helicopters to utilize ``copter procedures'' or other procedures 
prescribed in subpart C of that part, and to use the Category A minimum 
descent altitude (MDA) or decision height (DH). Part 97 also authorizes 
helicopter operators to reduce the required visibility minimum to one-
half the published visibility minimum for Category A aircraft, but in 
no case may it be reduced to less than one-quarter mile or 1,200 feet 
runway visibility range (RVR).
    Alternate airport weather minima are established using the ceiling 
and visibility requirements for circling approaches as a minimum. The 
United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) (FAA 
Order 8260.3B), Chapter 11. Helicopter Procedures, paragraph 1100.a, 
``Identification of Inapplicable Criteria'', states in part, ``circling 
approach and high altitude penetration criteria do not apply to 
helicopter procedures.'' The FAA in fact does not evaluate pilots in 
the performance of circling approaches during evaluation for any rating 
or check involving the piloting of a helicopter. Additionally, the 
Instrument Rating Practical Test Standards (PTS) (FAA-S-8081-4C), 
published by the FAA to establish the standards for instrument rating 
certification practical tests for airplane, helicopter, and powered 
lift category and classes of aircraft indicates that the circling 
approach task is appropriate only to airplane and airship instrument 
proficiency checks and ratings.
    Therefore, the FAA is proposing to change the language of 
Sec. 91.169(c) to permit a helicopter operator to use an airport as an 
alternate airport provided the ceiling is at least 200 feet above, and 
the visibility is at least 1 mile above, the approach minima for the 
approach to be flown. This change would allow helicopters to use lower-
than-standard

[[Page 35904]]

alternate airport minima regardless of the approach to be flown while 
eliminating the need to alter current approach plates.
    Certain commenters proposed that the FAA specify separate alternate 
airport weather minima for precision and nonprecision approaches used 
by a helicopter operator. Specifically, a 400-foot ceiling and one mile 
visibility was proposed for precision approach procedures and a 600-
foot ceiling and one mile visibility was proposed for nonprecision 
approach procedures.
    The FAA, however, adopted the language specified in the proposal to 
ensure that alternate airport approach minima are above actual approach 
minima in those situations where actual approach minima may be above 
values commonly associated with precision and nonprecision approaches. 
The proposed changes would recognize the unique operating 
characteristics of helicopters and would remove the operational 
restrictions that occur by requiring helicopters to use alternate 
approach minima specified in current instrument approach procedures.

Special Instrument Approach Procedures

    Current 14 CFR 91.167(b) states in part that, ``paragraph (a)(2) of 
this section does not apply if--(1) Part 97 of this chapter prescribes 
a standard instrument approach procedure for the first airport of 
intended landing.'' Additionally, current 14 CFR 91.169(b) states in 
part that ``Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if part 97 
of this chapter prescribes a standard instrument approach procedure for 
the first airport of intended landing.'' Current regulatory language 
does not provide for the use of special instrument approach procedures 
in determining an aircraft operator's ability to meet alternate airport 
requirements. The proposal would permit all aircraft operators to use 
special instrument approach procedures in determining compliance with 
alternate airport requirements.
    Special instrument approach procedures are not issued pursuant to 
14 CFR part 97 but may be issued to an operator through inclusion in 
the operator's Operations Specifications or through a letter of 
authorization issued by the Administrator to a specific operator. These 
approach procedures are not published in part 97, but are developed 
under the authority of 14 CFR 91.175(a). The FAA has developed over 120 
new helicopter non-precision Global Positioning System (GPS) instrument 
approaches to heliports since 1995, over 75% of them since October 
1997. The FAA has determined that these approaches are not standard 
instrument approach procedures but ``special instrument approach 
procedures'' which require additional aircrew training prior to their 
use. Therefore, to permit aircraft operators to use special instrument 
approach procedures to comply with alternate airport requirements, the 
FAA has revised the language contained in Secs. 91.167(b)(1) and 
91.169(b)(1), (c)(1), and (c)(2) of the original notice to permit the 
use of these special approaches when issued to an operator by the 
Administrator.

Weather Reports and Forecasts

    Certain commenters noted the FAA's inaccurate use of the terms 
``weather forecasts'' and ``weather reports,'' and the inconsistency 
between the way the terms ``weather reports and forecasts and weather 
conditions'' and ``weather reports and/or prevailing weather 
forecast''' were used in the proposed narrative format and tabular 
format, respectively. The FAA agrees that the phrases were used 
inconsistently in the proposal and is therefore proposing use of the 
phrase ``appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a 
combination of them'' in those instances where weather reports and 
weather forecasts are to be considered by an operator.
    The proposed language reflects current usage of the terms ``weather 
forecasts'' and ``weather reports'' by meteorologists and aviation 
industry personnel. It also includes the term ``appropriate'' when 
referring to weather reports and weather forecasts to indicate that an 
operator should consider current weather reports and current and valid 
weather forecasts when determining if a flight requires an alternate 
airport. Use of the term ``appropriate'' is consistent with references 
to weather reports and forecasts in other operating rules. Its 
inclusion should eliminate any ambiguity and ensure conformity in 
determining those reports and forecasts that should be considered by an 
operator when designating an alternate airport. Use of the term 
``appropriate'' is also consistent with the provisions of 14 CFR 91.103 
which requires each pilot in command, before beginning a flight, to 
become familiar with all available information concerning that flight.
    With regard to the use of weather forecasts, the FAA notes that 
although a weather forecast may be valid for a period as long as 24 
hours, only the most current and valid weather forecast would be 
considered ``appropriate.'' In some instances a current weather 
forecast may be issued, however it may not be valid for the time period 
required to be considered by an operator when choosing an alternate 
airport. Such a report would not be considered ``appropriate.'' Any 
superseded weather report is not considered current and its use in 
determining an alternate airport would not be considered appropriate.
    The proposal also does not include the descriptive term 
``prevailing'' with the phrase ``weather forecasts'' because 
``prevailing'' is used to refer to actual weather conditions observed 
at a station and not to weather forecasts. Its use in the context of 
the original proposal was therefore improper and has been deleted.

Format of the Proposed Rule

    In response to the FAA's request for specific comments on the 
comparative merits of displaying portions of Secs. 91.167(b) and 
91.169(b) and (c) in tabular or narrative format, seven commenters 
addressed this issue. Three commenters preferred the tabular format; 
two preferred the narrative; and two stated that either format was 
acceptable. Originally the FAA believed that the tabular format could 
be a method to make the regulations clearer, pursuant to a 
recommendation by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and 
Security and the June 1, 1998 Presidential Memorandum, ``Plain Language 
in Government Writing.'' Upon further consideration of the advantages 
and disadvantages of narrative and tabular formats, the FAA believes 
that the narrative format is preferable. Use of a narrative format is 
consistent with the format of other regulations in part 91 and does not 
cause a visual break in the flow of type on a page. This revised 
proposal is therefore in the all-narrative format.

Technical Corrections

    In the original notice the FAA proposed distinct alternate airport 
weather minima for airplanes and helicopters. Aircraft other than 
airplanes and helicopters (e.g. airships) however may require access to 
the IFR system and require the need for an alternate airport. The FAA 
therefore has revised the original proposal to provide different 
alternate airport requirements for helicopters and for aircraft other 
than helicopters, as opposed to airplanes.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), the FAA has determined that there are no requirements for 
information collection associated with this proposed rule.

[[Page 35905]]

Compatibility With ICAO Standards

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices (SARP's) to the maximum extent practicable. The 
FAA has reviewed corresponding ICAO SARP's and has identified the 
following differences with these proposed regulations.
    The proposal would not prescribe that the weather at the airport of 
intended landing be at or above the operating minima at the estimated 
time of arrival. Paragraph 2.6.2.1 of ICAO Annex 6, Part III, 
International Operations-Helicopters, Section III, International 
General Aviation, Chapter 2. Flight Operations, requires that the 
heliport of intended landing meet operating minima at the estimated 
time of arrival. Current Sec. 91.169 also does not specify minimum 
weather requirements for the airport of intended landing at the 
estimated time of arrival.
    The proposal would require helicopter operators to evaluate weather 
conditions at the airport of intended landing from the estimated time 
of arrival until one hour after the estimated time of arrival when 
determining whether an alternate airport is required. Paragraph 2.6.2.2 
of ICAO Annex 6, Part III, Section III, requires an operator to 
evaluate weather conditions at the heliport of intended landing from 
two hours before to two hours after the estimated time of arrival or 
from the actual time of departure to two hours after the estimated time 
of arrival. Current Sec. 91.169 (b) requires an operator to evaluate 
weather conditions at the airport of intended landing from 1 hour 
before the estimated time of arrival until 1 hour after the estimated 
time of arrival. Proposed Sec. 91.169 (b) would require an operator of 
a helicopter to evaluate weather conditions at the airport of intended 
landing from the estimated time of arrival until one hour after the 
estimated time of arrival.
    Paragraph 2.7.1 of ICAO Annex 6, Part III, Section III, states that 
an alternate shall be required in an operator's flight plan unless the 
weather conditions specified in paragraph 2.6.2.2 of that section 
prevail or other specific conditions related to isolated heliports are 
met and a point of no return (PNR) determination is made, if 
applicable. The proposed weather conditions for the selection of an 
alternate differ from those specified in paragraph 2.6.2.2. and the 
proposal does not address isolated heliports and PNR determinations.
    The FAA recognizes that certain provisions of the notice differ 
from ICAO SARPs, however the agency has set forth the proposal to 
recognize the unique operational characteristics of helicopters and to 
facilitate their entry into the IFR system. If the proposal is adopted 
the FAA intends to file these differences with ICAO.

Economic Evaluation Summary

    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 determination 
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, OMB 
directs agencies to assess the effect of regulatory changes on 
international trade. In conducting these analyses, the FAA has 
determined this proposal is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed 
rule is not considered significant under the regulatory policies and 
procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034, February 
26, 1979). This proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities and would not constitute a barrier 
to international trade. The FAA invites the public to provide comments 
and supporting data on the assumptions made in this evaluation. All 
comments received will be considered in the final regulatory 
evaluation.
    This section summarizes the FAA's economic and trade analyses, 
findings, and determinations in response to these requirements. The 
complete economic and trade analyses are contained in the docket (see 
ADDRESSES above).

Benefits

    There are both quantifiable and non-quantifiable benefits that can 
be attributed to this SPNRM. Non-quantifiable benefits include the 
reduction in the level of aircraft noise experienced by individuals on 
the ground when helicopters fly at higher altitudes and cost savings 
associated with enhanced corporate flight operations. These benefits 
are difficult to accurately measure, and are discussed below under ``A. 
Qualitative Benefits.'' Other benefits would be any reduction in the 
number of fatal and serious accidents that occur in marginal weather 
conditions. These benefits can be estimated more readily, and are 
discussed below under ``B. Quantitative Benefits.''

A. Qualitative Benefits

    During periods of marginal or inclement weather conditions, 
helicopter operators are often unable to utilize the IFR system because 
they are unable to meet the IFR flight plan requirements and criteria 
for specifying an alternate airport. When this occurs, helicopter 
operators often will fly under either VFR or Special VFR at lower 
altitudes. By flying at lower altitudes, third party costs (increased 
level of aircraft noise), are experienced by individuals on the ground.
    All noise has the potential to annoy because of interference with 
speech, sleep, work, or other activities. However, aircraft noise is a 
function of aircraft altitude, and noise or sound energy can be reduced 
by increasing the flight altitude. Therefore, by providing helicopter 
operators with the opportunity to increase the altitude of a helicopter 
flight through increased access to the IFR system, the proposed rule 
will help to reduce the sound energy on the ground generated by that 
helicopter. For example, if a helicopter flying VFR at 250 ft above 
ground level (AGL) in marginal weather conditions is able to fly IFR at 
4,000 ft AGL in the same marginal weather conditions, the sound energy 
is reduced by 24 dB, which represents a decrease to less than one-
hundredth the level of sound intensity experienced by third parties on 
the ground.
    Another benefit of this rule that is difficult to quantify is the 
reduction of the opportunity cost of idle executive and other 
management time. Due to the high level of concern many companies have 
regarding the safety of their senior executives, the safe operation of 
their corporate helicopters receives a high priority. As such, during 
periods of marginal or adverse weather conditions, many corporate 
helicopter operations are canceled rather than flown VFR under those 
conditions. Because helicopters provide prompt and effective 
transportation, a portion of the opportunity cost resulting from 
canceled operations can be measured by the lost productivity associated 
with the extra time involved by executives and other personnel using 
alternate forms of transportation, such as automobiles. By enabling 
more helicopter pilots to operate under IFR in marginal weather 
conditions, these opportunity costs could be avoided.

[[Page 35906]]

B. Quantitative Benefits

    The quantitative benefits of this rulemaking are derived from a 
potential reduction in weather related accidents associated with 
helicopters operating under VFR or special VFR. The FAA believes that 
many weather related accidents of the type that in the past occurred 
under VFR can be prevented in the future by enhanced helicopter 
operator access into the IFR system. The FAA further believes that this 
proposed rule will result in increased safety and offer greater 
operational flexibility for helicopter operators. The FAA bases this 
belief largely on the U.S. Army's experience of no mishaps over the 
past 16 years associated with flight planning criteria similar to the 
FAA's proposed rule.
    To estimate potential safety benefits, the FAA analyzed National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) helicopter accident data, where 
weather was a cause or factor, for the 10-year period from 1988 to 
1997. The most recent accidents that occurred in 1998 are still under 
review; therefore, because the data record is not complete, no data 
from 1998 is used in this analysis.
    During the 10-year period studied, there were a total of 258 
helicopter accidents where weather was a cause or factor of the 
accident. The total includes 182 accidents involving VFR flight without 
a flight plan filed, 73 accidents where a VFR flight plan was filed, 
and three accidents where an IFR flight plan was filed. The 182 
accidents involving VFR flights is approximately 60 times greater than 
the three accidents that occurred under an IFR flight. In addition, the 
73 accidents where VFR flight plans were filed is approximately 24 
times greater than the three in IFR operation. When the 182 accidents 
are added to the 73 accidents, the result is a total of 255 accidents, 
which represents approximately 99 percent of all the accidents that 
occurred when weather was a cause or factor.
    According to informal industry surveys, approximately 10 percent of 
all helicopter flights flown are performed under an IFR flight plan. To 
corroborate the results of the industry surveys, the FAA conducted a 
simple random sample of helicopter flight plans. The sample consisted 
of 104 randomly selected helicopter flight plans from the Southern 
Region. The results showed 33 helicopter flight plans were IFR and 71 
were VFR. To approximate the proportion of VFR flights that occurred 
without a flight plan compared to the sample number of VFR flights, the 
FAA calculated the ratio of VFR flights without a flight plan to VFR 
flight plans from the observed accident history. The FAA then 
multiplied that ratio by the number of VFR flight plans from the 
sample. The computation produced an estimate of 178 helicopter flights 
flown VFR without a flight plan during the time period to compare with 
the 33 flight plans of the sample.
    Once an estimate of the number of VFR flights without a flight plan 
was determined (178), the FAA then added that to the number of sample 
VFR flight plans filed (71) and the sample IFR flight plans filed (33). 
That total (282) was divided into the number of IFR flight plans (33). 
This produced the estimated percentage of all helicopter flights flown 
IFR (11.7%), which is only 1.7 percent greater than the industry survey 
results of 10 percent.
    The percent of IFR flights from the sample approximately equals the 
industry survey results. These comparable ratios provide some 
corroborative evidence that 10 percent of all helicopter operations are 
conducted under an IFR flight plan. As such, the number of accidents 
flying IFR would be expected to be approximately 10 percent of the 
total accidents, or 26 accidents. However, instead of 26 accidents only 
three accidents occurred under an IFR flight plan. Because the actual 
number of accidents (3) is approximately 12 percent of the expected 
number of accidents (26), this information suggests that IFR flight is 
safer than VFR flight when marginal weather conditions are present.
    When the fatalities sustained during the study period flying with 
no flight plan (67) are added to the fatalities sustained flying with a 
VFR flight plan (64) the result is 131 fatal injuries. There were 10 
fatal injuries sustained under an IFR flight plan. Similarly, when 
serious injuries sustained flying with no flight plan (46) are added to 
the serious injuries sustained flying with a VFR flight plan (41), the 
result is 87. There was one serious injury sustained in IFR flight.
    In aggregate, the number of fatalities and serious injuries that 
occurred under VFR flight is significantly greater than those that 
occurred under an IFR flight plan. The FAA is aware that even though 
weather was a cause or contributing factor in all of these accidents, 
this rulemaking would not have prevented all of these accidents or 
injuries. However, the accident and injury data discussed previously 
suggest IFR flight is safer than VFR flight when marginal weather 
conditions are present.
    Further research revealed that in 19 of the 255 accidents involving 
VFR flight, the pilot-in-command had instrument ratings for 
helicopters, or for a combination of helicopters and airplanes. The FAA 
believes that with the revised weather minimums and the revised 
standard/nonstandard approach minima provided by the proposal, the 
pilots with instrument ratings could have taken advantage of positive 
air traffic control services (such as obstacle avoidance) and flown 
IFR. However, due to the uncertainty regarding the weather at the 
destination airports, the FAA recognizes that not all of these 19 
accidents may have been avoided. Therefore, the FAA applied the same 
percentage described above regarding the expected and actual accidents 
under IFR (3/26  12%) where weather was a cause or factor of 
the accident and determined that 3 of the 19 accidents (19  x  12% 
 3) would not have been avoided due to this rulemaking.
    There were a total of 16 serious injuries and 18 fatalities that 
were sustained in the 19 accidents involving VFR flight where the 
pilot-in-command had instrument ratings for helicopters, or for a 
combination of helicopters and airplanes. To determine the potential 
benefits that will result from this SNPRM, the FAA estimated the 
average costs associated with all the injuries and fatalities. A 
economic value of $2.7 million and $518,000 was applied to each human 
fatality and serious injury, respectively in accordance with current 
guidance provided by the Department of Transportation. This computation 
resulted in an estimate of approximately $57 million in casualty costs. 
Also, the value of all of the destroyed aircraft was estimated to be $8 
million. If this rulemaking (the NPRM plus the SNPRM) helps prevent 88 
percent of these injuries and fatalities that resulted from 19 
accidents, the expected potential safety benefits evenly distributed 
over the next ten years will be approximately $57 million ($40 million, 
discounted).

Costs

    As was the case with the preceding NPRM, this SNPRM would not 
impose any additional equipment, training, or other cost to the 
aviation industry. Therefore, the FAA believes there is no apparent 
compliance cost associated with this SNPRM. However, the FAA solicits 
comments regarding the plausibility and extent of the adverse impacts 
on operators from implementation of the proposed rule.

Comparison of Costs and Benefits

    The proposed rule would not place any additional requirements on 
the aviation industry. Therefore, there are no compliance costs 
associated with the

[[Page 35907]]

proposed rule. Qualitative benefits from the proposed rule would come 
from reducing the level of aircraft noise experienced by individuals on 
the ground and from cost savings associated with reducing 
transportation time for corporate executives and other personnel.
    The quantitative benefits come from a potential reduction in 
accidents by enabling more helicopter pilots to operate under IFR in 
marginal weather conditions. The regulatory evaluation for the original 
NPRM found that there were potential safety benefits of $48 million 
($34 million, present value) in addition to the non-quantified benefits 
discussed above. In this regulatory evaluation of the original NPRM 
plus the SNPRM, the potential safety benefits over the next 10 years 
could be $57 million or $40 million, present value. Therefore, the FAA 
has determined both the original NPRM and this SNPRM are cost 
beneficial.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes as a 
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, 
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, 
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the 
businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to 
regulation. To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to 
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the 
rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide range of small 
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and 
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposal or 
final rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of entities. If the determination is that it would, the agency 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. 
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is not 
expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities, section 605 (b) of the RFA provides that the head of 
the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required. The certification must include a statement providing the 
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    This rule would impact entities regulated by part 91. The FAA has 
determined that there would be no compliance costs associated with this 
SNPRM, but in the NPRM published September 2, 1998, the agency 
solicited comments from operators who felt they would be negatively 
impacted from implementation of the proposed rule. Only positive 
comments were received supporting the FAA's position that this proposed 
rulemaking would not place any additional requirements on the aviation 
industry. Therefore, the FAA believes that there are no compliance 
costs associated with the proposed rule. Accordingly, the Federal 
Aviation Administration certifies that this rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Statement

    The provisions of this proposed rule would have little or no impact 
on trade for U.S. firms doing business in foreign countries and foreign 
firms doing business in the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 
codified in 2 U.S.C 1501-1571, requires each Federal agency, to the 
extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment of the effects 
of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may 
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Section 204(a) of 
the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal agency to develop an 
effective process to permit timely input by elected officers (or their 
designees) of State, local, and tribal governments on a proposed 
``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any provision in a Federal 
agency regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, 
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of $100 million 
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Section 203 of the 
Act (2 U.S.C. 1533), which supplements section 204(a), provides that 
before establishing any regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the agency shall 
have developed a plan that, among other things, provides for notice to 
potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a meaningful 
and timely opportunity to provide input in the development of 
regulatory proposals.
    This proposed rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental 
or private sector mandate exceeds $100 million in any one year.

Federalism Implications

    The proposed regulations would not have substantial direct effects 
on the States, on the relationship between national Government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
various levels of government. Thus, in accordance with Executive Order 
12612, it is determined that such a regulation would not have 
federalism implications warranting the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment.

Environmental Analysis

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

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 21

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 27

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 29

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 91

    Aircraft, Airports, Aviation safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend parts 21, 27, 29, and 91 of Chapter I, 
title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 21--CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS

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

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


SFAR No. 29-4  [Removed]

    2. Remove Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 29-4--
Limited IFR Operations of Rotorcraft from part 21.

PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

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


[[Page 35908]]


    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

    4. Remove the reference to SFAR No. 29-4.

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

    5. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

    6. Remove the reference to SFAR No. 29-4.

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

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

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


SFAR No. 29-4  [Removed]

    8. Remove Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 29-4, 
Limited IFR Operations of Rotorcraft, from part 91.
    9. Revise Sec. 91.167 to read as follows:


Sec. 91.167  Fuel requirements for flight into IFR conditions.

    (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless 
it carries enough fuel (considering appropriate weather reports or 
weather forecasts, or a combination of them) to--
    (1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fly from 
that airport to the alternate airport; and
    (3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for 
helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.
    (b) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if:
    (1) Part 97 of this chapter prescribes a standard instrument 
approach procedure to, or a special instrument approach procedure has 
been issued by the Administrator to the operator for, the first airport 
of intended landing; and
    (2) Appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a 
combination of them, indicate the following:
    (i) For aircraft other than helicopters. For at least 1 hour before 
and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be 
at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation and the visibility will 
be at least 3 statute miles.
    (ii) For helicopters. At the estimated time of arrival and for 1 
hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 
1,000 feet above the airport elevation, or at least 400 feet above the 
lowest applicable approach minima, whichever is higher, and the 
visibility will be at least 2 statute miles.
    10. Revise Sec. 91.169 (a), (b), and (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 91.169  IFR flight plan: Information required.

    (a) Information required. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each 
person filing an IFR flight plan must include in it the following 
information:
    (1) Information required under Sec. 91.153 (a) of this part;
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an 
alternate airport.
    (b) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if :
    (1) Part 97 of this chapter prescribes a standard instrument 
approach procedure to, or a special instrument approach procedure has 
been issued by the Administrator to the operator for, the first airport 
of intended landing; and
    (2) Appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a 
combination of them, indicate the following:
    (i) For aircraft other than helicopters. For at least 1 hour before 
and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be 
at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation and the visibility will 
be at least 3 statute miles.
    (ii) For helicopters. At the estimated time of arrival and for 1 
hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 
1,000 feet above the airport elevation, or at least 400 feet above the 
lowest applicable approach minima, whichever is higher, and the 
visibility will be at least 2 statute miles.
    (c) IFR alternate airport weather minima. Unless otherwise 
authorized by the Administrator, no person may include an alternate 
airport in an IFR flight plan unless appropriate weather reports or 
weather forecasts, or a combination of them, indicate that, at the 
estimated time of arrival at the alternate airport, the ceiling and 
visibility at that airport will be at or above the following weather 
minima:
    (1) If an instrument approach procedure has been published in part 
97 of this chapter, or a special instrument approach procedure has been 
issued by the Administrator to the operator, for that airport, the 
following minima:
    (i) For aircraft other than helicopters: The alternate airport 
minima specified in that procedure, or if none are specified the 
following standard approach minima:
    (A) For a precision approach procedure. Ceiling 600 feet and 
visibility 2 statute miles.
    (B) For a nonprecision approach procedure. Ceiling 800 feet and 
visibility 2 statute miles.
    (ii) For helicopters: Ceiling 200 feet above and visibility 1 
statute mile above the approach minima for the approach to be flown, 
and
    (2) If no instrument approach procedure has been published in part 
97 of this chapter or no special instrument approach procedure has been 
issued by the Administrator to the operator, for the alternate airport, 
the ceiling and visibility minima are those allowing descent from the 
MEA, approach, and landing under basic VFR.
* * * * *
    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 25, 1999.
Ava L. Mims,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 99-16794 Filed 6-28-99; 2:54 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P