[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3540-3546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1326]



[[Page 3539]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Parts 21, 27, 29, and 91



Flight Plan Requirements for Helicopter Operational Under Instrument 
Flight Rules; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 3540]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 21, 27, 29, and 91

[Docket No. FAA-98-4390; Amendment No. 21-76, 27-39, 29-46, 91-259]
RIN 2120-AG53


Flight Plan Requirements for Helicopter Operations Under 
Instrument Flight Rules

AGENCY:  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:  Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  The FAA is amending 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. This action will provide operators with an 
additional margin of safety by easing access of helicopters to the IFR 
system, result in a reduction of noise heard on the ground, and 
increase the ability of operators to use helicopters more efficiently.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  January 21, 2000.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Final Rules

    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) or the Government Printing Office's (GPO) electronic bulletin 
board service (telephone: (202) 512-1661).
    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 Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling 
(202) 267-9680. Communications must identify the amendment number or 
docket number of this final rule.
    Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future 
rulemaking documents should request from the above office a copy of 
Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution 
System, which describes the application procedure.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for 
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations 
within its jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a 
question regarding this document may contact their local FAA official. 
Internet users can find additional information on SBREFA on the FAA's 
web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa/htm and may send 
electronic inquiries to the following internet address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7f46523e283e522c3d2d3a393e3f191e1e51181009"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a29b8fe3f5e38ff1e0f0e7e4e3e2c4c3c38cc5cdd4">[email protected]</span></a>.

Background

    The FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (63 FR 46834; 
Sept. 2, 1998) that 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 flight conditions. The NPRM also proposed to 
withdraw Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 29-4, Limited 
IFR Operations of Rotorcraft. The public comment period closed on 
October 2, 1998.
    The FAA later issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(SNPRM) (64 FR 35902; July 1, 1999) that sought comments on 
modifications made to the NPRM in response to commenters' suggestions. 
The public comment period for the SNPRM closed on August 2, 1999.

Statement of the Problem

    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, which 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. 
A helicopter is therefore 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. 
This final rule revises the flight planning requirements for helicopter 
IFR operations to take into account their unique operating 
characteristics.

History

    Over the past several years, there have been specific 
recommendations from industry, and from joint efforts of the FAA and 
industry regarding regulatory changes to safely expand helicopter 
access to the IFR system. The FAA has been addressing these 
recommendations by working with industry to identify regulations that 
prevent safe helicopter operations in the IFR environment.

Previous Rulemakings

    In January 1975, the FAA issued Special Federal Aviation Regulation 
(SFAR) No. 29 (40 FR 2420; Jan. 13, 1975), which authorized the 
carriage, in rotorcraft IFR operations, of less than the 45 minutes, 
but not less than the 30 minutes, of additional fuel reserve, then 
required by Sec. 91.23 (c) (now Sec. 91.167(a)(3)), when approved by 
the Administrator. The SFAR also authorized the issuance of approvals 
for limited IFR operations for certain transport category rotorcraft 
that are certified to only operate under VFR. In 1979, the FAA 
undertook the Rotorcraft Regulatory Review Program (44 FR 3250; Jan. 
15, 1979), which was a comprehensive review of rotorcraft operations 
and certification.
    In an NPRM issued in 1985 (50 FR 10144; March 13, 1985), the FAA 
proposed to amend Sec. 91.23 (now Sec. 91.167) by reducing the fuel 
reserve requirement for helicopters from 45 minutes to 30 minutes. The 
FAA also proposed to amend the alternate airport IFR flight plan filing 
requirements by reducing the ceiling minimum for helicopters from 2,000 
feet to 1,000 feet, and the visibility minimum for helicopters from 3 
miles to 1 mile. No changes were proposed to Sec. 91.83 (now 
Sec. 91.169). As the FAA stated in the preamble to the 1985 NPRM, the 
basis for the proposed reductions was that a helicopter has the unique 
ability to reduce airspeed safely on approach to as low as 40 knots, 
and is therefore provided reduced visibility minima in part 97. The 
proposal also said that because the helicopter, with its reduced 
minima, has a better probability of completing the flight to the 
planned

[[Page 3541]]

destination, it should be allowed a reduced fuel reserve. In the 1985 
NPRM, the FAA also stated that it had gained sufficient experience with 
operations under SFAR No. 29 to conclude that reducing the required 
fuel reserve would not decrease the level of safety.
    In 1986, the FAA issued a final rule (51 FR 40692; Nov. 7, 1986) 
that adopted the proposal to reduce the fuel reserve required under 
Sec. 91.23. The FAA did not, however, adopt the proposal to reduce the 
ceiling and visibility minima because a report entitled ``Weather 
Deterioration Models Applied to Alternate Airport Criteria (Report No. 
DOT/FAA/RD 81/92 (September 1981) had stated that ``any reduction in 
alternate airport requirements should be offset by limiting the 
duration of the flight for which the reduced requirements apply'' (p. 
4-1). The findings in that report, however, were preliminary, and in 
the years that have passed since it was issued, the FAA's experience 
with helicopter IFR flight plan filing criteria indicates that the 
preliminary concern for reduced helicopter ceiling and visibility 
minima was overemphasized.

U.S. Army Practices

    In 1982, the U.S. Army adopted reduced IFR alternate airport 
weather planning minima and alternate airport selection criteria for 
both helicopters and airplanes. The Army's criteria of a ceiling 400 
feet above the weather planning minimum required for the approach to be 
flown, and visibility one mile greater than the weather planning 
minimum required for the approach to be flown has been used for over 17 
years and there have been thousands of flight hours with no mishaps 
associated with these weather planning criteria. The U.S. Army's 
experience demonstrates that reducing helicopter ceiling and visibility 
minima for IFR flight planning results in a level of safety equivalent 
to the current rule and offers greater operational flexibility for 
helicopter operators.

ELVIRA Workshop

    In August 1993, a workshop conducted by the FAA with industry, 
called the Extremely Low Visibility Instrument Rotorcraft Approaches 
(ELVIRA) Workshop, resulted in a list of ``Ten Most Wanted'' changes 
(see ``Extremely Low Visibility IFR Rotorcraft Approach (ELVIRA) 
Operational Concept Development, Final Report,'' Report No. DOT/FAA/RD-
94/1,I. (March 1994)). The unprioritized list of 10 desired IFR system 
enhancements included ``rotorcraft specific minima'' for determining 
the need for, and availability of, alternate airports for flight plan 
filing purposes (ELVIRA final report, p. 3).
    Since rotorcraft are for the most part range-limited, their 
destination airport and alternate airport will most likely be in the 
same air mass and consequently will have similar weather. In the ELVIRA 
final report (p. 34), the FAA noted that the current regulations result 
in a ``severe penalty in the productivity of helicopters operating 
under IFR.'' In addition, the FAA observed that ``with certain weather 
conditions it is often impossible for the helicopter operator to gain 
access to the current IFR system, while VFR flight is allowed. * * * 
[C]hanging this [the alternate airport minima] to 400-1 for a 
[helicopter] precision approach and 600-1 for a [helicopter] non-
precision approach procedure, will enable many more [helicopter] IFR 
operations to take place while maintaining the same level of safety'' 
(pp. 34-35).

Petitions for Exemption

    On February 23, 1995, Helicopter Association International (HAI) 
petitioned the FAA for an exemption from Sec. 91.169 (c)(1)(i), which 
provides that alternate airport minima for a precision approach are a 
ceiling of 600 feet and visibility of 2 statute miles. The petition 
asked the FAA to allow lower alternate airport weather minima for IFR 
flight planning.
    On April 24, 1996, HAI filed an amendment to its petition for 
exemption from Sec. 91.169 (c)(1)(i), proposing, in part, to limit 
operations under the requested exemption to those conducted by certain 
operators named in the amended petition. The stated purpose of this 
amendment was the further ``accumulation of data to prove the 
operational safety of the use of such minimums.'' In addition, the FAA 
has received 13 other petitions requesting amendments to 
Sec. Sec. 91.169 and 91.167 to allow helicopter operations with reduced 
alternate weather requirements. (With the issuance of the NPRM 
published on September 2, 1998, the FAA closed the docket on HAI's 
petition for exemption, and on the petitions submitted by HAI and 
others for various amendments to Sec. Sec. 91.169, 91.167 and related 
regulations.) 0

ARAC Actions

    The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) was established 
by the FAA to provide industry information and expertise during the 
rulemaking process. In October 1991, an IFR Fuel Reserve Working Group 
of the ARAC, General Aviation Operations Issues, was assigned the task 
to ``evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of revising the fuel 
reserve requirements for flight under instrument flight rules'' (56 FR 
51744; Oct. 15, 1991). Later the working group also evaluated: (1) The 
advantages and disadvantages of revised precision and non-precision 
instrument approach minima and alternate weather minima, considering 
the operational capability of the helicopter to decelerate before and 
during arrival at the Decision Height or Minimum Descent Altitude, 
including circling approaches; and (2) whether or not this capability 
reduces risk and the probability of a missed approach and the need to 
proceed to an alternate and meet the resulting regulatory alternate 
fuel requirement. The working group, which consisted of representatives 
from helicopter associations, helicopter manufacturers, helicopter 
pilot associations, helicopter operators, and government agencies, met 
numerous times between January 1992 and October 1997. As a result, ARAC 
submitted its recommendation to the FAA in November 1997. The FAA based 
the NPRM, published on September 2, 1998, and the SNPRM, published on 
July 1, 1999, on that ARAC recommendation.
    ARAC recommended that the FAA revise the weather minima used to 
determine whether carriage of additional fuel to reach an alternate 
airport is needed when flying in IFR conditions. Specifically, ARAC 
suggested revising paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 91.167--Fuel requirements 
for flight in IFR conditions, to state that: ``* * * weather reports or 
prevailing weather forecast or combination of them indicate * * * for 
helicopters, at the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be 
1,000 feet above the airport elevation or 400 feet above the lowest 
approach minima, whichever is higher; and * * * at the estimated time 
of arrival, the visibility will be at least 2 statute miles.'' The 
ARAC's suggested revisions would create different ceiling and 
visibility criteria for helicopters (as opposed to those for other 
aircraft), and would also change the requirement that those ceiling and 
visibility criteria be in effect for at least 1 hour before and 1 hour 
after the estimated time of arrival.
    ARAC also recommended that IFR flight plan requirements for 
helicopters be amended by revising the alternate airport weather 
planning requirements and weather minima necessary when designating an 
alternate airport on an IFR flight plan. ARAC suggested that the FAA 
revise paragraph (b) of Sec. 91.169--IFR flight plan: Information 
required, to state that the provisions of paragraph

[[Page 3542]]

(a)(2) of that section would not apply if 14 CFR part 97 prescribes `` 
* * * a standard instrument approach procedure for the first airport of 
intended landing and the weather reports or prevailing weather forecast 
or combination of them indicate * * * for helicopters, at the estimated 
time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 1,000 feet above the 
airport or heliport elevation or 400 feet above the lowest approach 
minima, whichever is higher; and * * * at the estimated time of 
arrival, the visibility will be at least 2 statute miles.''
    Under Sec. 91.169 (c), ARAC again suggested creating IFR alternate 
weather minima for helicopters performing precision and nonprecision 
approaches that would be different from those applicable to other 
aircraft. The new criteria would apply when it would be necessary to 
include an alternate airport in an IFR flight plan. Ceiling and 
visibility conditions at the alternate airport would be for ``current 
prevailing weather forecasts * * * at the estimated time of arrival'' 
(when no instrument approach procedure has been specified in 14 CFR 
part 97 for an alternate airport). The helicopter minima recommended by 
ARAC were as follows: For a ``precision approach procedure * * * for 
helicopters, [c]eiling 400 feet and visibility 1 statute mile;'' and 
for a ``nonprecision approach procedure * * * for helicopters, 
[c]eiling 600 feet and visibility 1 statute mile.''
    The FAA agreed with most of ARAC's recommendations, except the 
elimination of the requirement under Sec. Sec. 91.167 (b)(2) and 91.169 
(b) that weather report and forecast data be in effect for 1 hour after 
the estimated time of arrival.

Discussion of Comments to the Original NPRM

General

    The public comment period on the FAA's September 2, 1998 NPRM 
closed on October 2, 1998. Thirty-nine comments were received, 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 rule 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 
believed that this course of action would have enabled the FAA and 
industry to determine whether the SFAR was needed or had outlived its 
usefulness. After that time, the FAA could better evaluate its removal. 
The FAA does not believe retaining the SFAR is necessary and is 
therefore removing it.
    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 NPRM 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. Prior to the adoption of this rule, standard alternate 
airport weather minima for all aircraft were stated in 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 were 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. For example, 14 CFR part 97 
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

[[Page 3543]]

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.
    In the SNPRM, the FAA therefore proposed to change the language of 
Sec. 91.169 (c)(1)(ii) to permit a helicopter operator to use an 
airport as an alternate airport provided the ceiling is at least ``200 
feet above and visibility 1 statute mile above the approach minima for 
the approach to be flown. * * *'' The purpose of this change was to 
allow helicopters to use lower-than-standard alternate airport minima 
regardless of the approach to be flown while eliminating the need to 
alter current approach plates. In making this change, the FAA 
unintentionally increased the visibility requirements proposed in the 
original NPRM. To correct this, the FAA has revised the language of 
Sec. 91.169 (c)(1)(i) in this final rule to correspond with the 
original intent of the NPRM. See ``Discussion of Comments to the 
SNPRM'' below.
    Some commenters requested 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, has not specified separate 
alternate airport weather minima for precision and nonprecision 
approaches used by helicopter operators in this rule. This action will 
ensure that alternate airport approach minima are above actual approach 
minma in those situations where actual approach minima may be above 
values commonly associated with precision and nonprecision approaches. 
The changes recognize the unique operating characteristics of 
helicopters and remove the operational restrictions that occur by 
requiring helicopters to use alternate approach minima specified in 
current instrument approach procedures.

Special Instrument Approach Procedures

    Prior to this rule change, Sec. 91.167 (b) stated 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, Sec. 91.169 (b) 
stated 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.'' That regulatory 
language did not provide for the use of special instrument approach 
procedures in determining an aircraft operator's ability to meet 
alternate airport requirements. This rule will permit an aircraft 
operator to use an authorized approach procedure in determining 
compliance with alternate airport requirements.
    Special instrument approach procedures are not issued pursuant to 
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 Sec. 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 Sec. Sec. 91.167 (b)(1) and 
91.169 (b)(1), (c)(1), and (c)(2) of the original NPRM 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 narrative format and tabular format 
proposed in Sec. Sec. 91.167 (b) and 91.169 (b) and (c) of the original 
NPRM. The FAA agrees that the phrases were used inconsistently in the 
original proposal and is therefore adopting the phrase ``appropriate 
weather reports or weather forecasts, or a combination of them'' in 
those paragraphs that pertain to the selection of an alternate airport. 
The final rule, however, retains the language proposed in Sec. 91.167 
(a) of the original NPRM. This language is substantively identical to 
that contained in current Sec. 91.167 (a) and ensures consideration of 
``weather conditions'' when determining fuel requirements for civil 
aircraft operations in IFR conditions, unless the provisions of 
paragraph (b) apply.
    The language used in this final rule 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 must 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 is 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 is not considered ``appropriate.'' Any superceded weather report 
is not considered current and its use in determining an alternate 
airport is not considered appropriate.
    The rule also does not include the descriptive term ``prevailing'' 
with the

[[Page 3544]]

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 Regulatory Text

    In response to the FAA's request in the original NPRM for specific 
comments on whether readers preferred a tabular or a narrative format 
in portions of Sec. Sec. 91.167 (b) and 91.169 (b) and (c), seven 
commenters addressed the subject. Three commenters preferred the 
tabular format; two preferred the narrative; and two stated that either 
format was acceptable. Upon further consideration, the FAA has decided 
not to use the tables in the form in which they were originally 
proposed because the format might be confusing to some people. The FAA 
is currently reviewing part 91 to see how tables and other plain 
language writing techniques could improve reader comprehension. Until 
this review is completed, the FAA has decided to use the narrative 
format for Sec. Sec. 91.167 (b) and 91.169 (b) and (c), but might 
reconsider this decision in future rulemaking.

Technical Corrections

    In the original NPRM, 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 
has therefore revised the language in the original proposal to provide 
different alternate airport requirements for helicopters and for 
aircraft other than helicopters, as opposed to airplanes, in this final 
rule.

Discussion of Comments to the SNPRM

    The public comment period on the FAA's SNPRM closed on August 2, 
1999. Six comments were received, all of which were generally 
favorable. Five commenters pointed out that the FAA changed the 
visibility minimum in Sec. 91.169 (c)(1)(ii) when it sought to revise 
helicopter alternate airport weather minima by eliminating the 
distinction between precision and nonprecision approaches specified in 
the original NPRM. The original NPRM had stated the visibility for both 
types of approaches ``will be 1 statute mile, but never lower than the 
published minima for the approach to be flown.'' However, the 
commenters stated, since visibility required for a typical helicopter 
ILS approach is \1/4\ mile, that would require an airport with this 
type of approach to have a visibility of at least 1\1/4\ miles to be 
considered an acceptable alternate airport. The original NPRM, however, 
would have permitted the designation of an airport that is forecast to 
have 1 mile visibility as an alternate airport on a helicopter 
instrument flight plan. The FAA agrees with the commenters and has 
changed the language in that section accordingly. One of the commenters 
also stated that if an aircraft is equipped with the appropriate 
advanced equipment that enhances situational awareness and reduces 
pilot workload, the aircraft should be eligible for alternate minima 
that are lower than those the FAA proposed. The FAA believes the 
comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking action and, therefore, 
is adopting the alternate minima set forth in this final rule.

Technical Corrections

    For the reasons previously specified in the discussion of ``Weather 
Reports and Forecasts'' under ``Discussion of Comments to the Original 
NPRM,'' the final rule retains the language originally proposed in 
Sec. 91.167 (a). This language is substantively identical to the 
language in current Sec. 91.167 (a).
    In addition, in Sec. 91.169 (c)(2), the word ``or'' has been 
changed to ``and.'' This change was made because the intent of the 
proposal was only to require the more restrictive VFR ceiling and 
visibility minima for the alternate airport if no instrument approach 
procedure had been published or issued.

Discussion of Dates

    The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553 (d)) requires 
publication of an amendment in the Federal Register at least 30 days 
before the effective date, unless good cause is determined. Because 
this final rule will increase safety by enabling more helicopter pilots 
to operate under IFR in marginal weather conditions without the 
restrictions imposed by the current regulations, the FAA has determined 
that there is no reason to delay the effective date for 30 days. The 
rule is therefore effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

International Compatibility

    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 to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and 
intends to file the following differences.
    This rule does 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.
    This rule 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 or from the actual time of departure to two hours 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 weather conditions for the selection of an alternate 
differ from those specified in paragraph 2.6.2.2, and the rule does not 
address isolated heliports and PNR determinations.
    The FAA has not adopted the ICAO standards for the reasons 
discussed earlier in this preamble.

Regulatory 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

[[Page 3545]]

economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, OMB 
directs agencies to assess the effect of regulatory changes on 
international trade. And fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment 
of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules 
that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by 
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for 
inflation).
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this rule 
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. The rule is not considered significant 
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of 
Transportation (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). This rule will not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and 
will not constitute a barrier to international trade. This rule will 
not impose any additional equipment, training, or other cost to the 
aviation industry. Therefore, there will be no compliance costs 
associated with the rule. The FAA estimates that the rule will provide 
$58 million ($41 million, present value) in benefits over the next 10 
years. In addition, there will be the non-quantified benefits which 
include a reduction in the level of aircraft noise experienced by 
individuals on the ground when helicopters fly at higher altitudes and 
possible savings in corporate personnel time associated with enhanced 
corporate flight operations.
    The rule will not present a significant impediment to either U.S. 
firms doing business abroad, or foreign firms doing business in the 
United States. Furthermore, the FAA certifies that the rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental or 
private sector mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, was 
enacted by the U.S. Congress to ensure that small entities are not 
unnecessarily or disproportionately burdened by Government regulations. 
The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule has a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business 
entities. FAA's interim regulatory flexibility policy and guidelines 
establish threshold costs and small entity size standards for complying 
with RFA requirements. This guidance defines small entities in terms of 
size thresholds, significant economic impact in terms of annualized 
cost thresholds, and substantial number as a number which is not less 
than eleven and which is more than one-third of the small entities 
subject to the final rule.
    This rule will impact entities regulated by part 91. The FAA has 
determined that there are no compliance costs associated with this 
rule. The FAA has also solicited comments during this rulemaking. No 
operators responded that they felt they would be negatively impacted 
from implementation of the rule. Only positive comments were received 
supporting the FAA's position that this rulemaking will not place any 
additional requirements on the aviation industry. Therefore, the FAA 
believes that there are no compliance costs associated with the rule. 
Accordingly, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 
U.S.C. 605 (b)), the FAA certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Statement

    The provisions of this rule will 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.

Federalism Implications

    The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of 
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The FAA has determined that this 
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. Therefore, the FAA has determined that this final rule does 
not have federalism implications.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Assessment

    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 will 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 rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental or private 
sector mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.

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.

Energy Impact

    The energy impact of the notice has been assessed in accordance 
with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), Pub. L. 94-163, as 
amended (43 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. It has been determined 
that the final rule is not a major regulatory action under the 
provisions of the EPCA.

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.

[[Page 3546]]

14 CFR Part 91

    Aircraft, Airports, Aviation safety.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends 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:

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


SFAR No. 29-4  [Removed]

    4. Remove SFAR No. 29-4 from in part 27.

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.

SFAR No. 29-4  [Removed]

    6. Remove SFAR No. 29-4 from in part 29.

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 in IFR conditions.

    (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless 
it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and 
weather conditions) 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 the minimum for the 
approach to be flown, and visibility at least 1 statute mile but never 
less than the minimum visibility for the approach to be flown, and
    (2) If no instrument approach procedure has been published in part 
97 of this chapter and 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 January 13, 2000.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-1326 Filed 1-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>