3540 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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: 9-AWASBREFA@faa.gov.

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 § 91.23 (c) (now

§ 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 § 91.23 (now

§ 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 § 91.83 (now

§ 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

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

§ 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 § 91.169—

IFR flight plan: Information required, to

state that the provisions of paragraph

3542 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(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 § 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

§ § 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-thanstandard 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

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

§ 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 § 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, § 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, § 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 § 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 § § 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

§ § 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 § 91.167 (a) of the original NPRM.

This language is substantively identical

to that contained in current § 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

3544 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 § § 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

§ § 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

§ 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 11⁄4 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 § 91.167 (a). This language

is substantively identical to the

language in current § 91.167 (a).

In addition, in § 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

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

3546 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 § 91.167 to read as follows:

§ 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 § 91.169 (a), (b), and (c) to

read as follows:

§ 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

§ 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