U.S. Department of Transportation **FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION** 



## FIN **AL REGUL**  **ATORY EV AL**  **UA TION**  **Pilot in Command Proficiency Check and Other Changes to the Pilot and Pilot School Certifications Rules** 

**(14 CFR 61**  **, 91, and 141)**  **OFFICE OF AVIATION POL ICY AND PLANS**  **OPERATIONS REGULATORY ANALYSIS BRANCH**

**APO -**  **300 November 4**  **, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS** 

**I. The Final Rule**  **– Introduction and Background** 

**______________________ 1**  **II. Benefits and Costs of Compliance** 

**________________________________ _**  **7 III.**  **Summary of Total Net Costs and B e**  **n efits_________________________55** 1

I. The Final Rule

– Introduction and Background The FAA has determined the final rule am endments for parts 61, 91 and 141 are needed to respond to changes in the aviation industry and to further reduce unnecessary regulatory

burdens. This section describe s the changes th at were analyzed . Section II examine s the changes with a more detail ed look at costs, cost savings and benefits . Section I II summarize s costs and benefits. The FAA examined benefits and costs over a 10 year period because this time period is sufficient to evaluate the benefits and costs of the final rule . This final rule amends the FAA’s regulations concerning pilot, flight instructor, and pilot school certification by A. R equiring proficiency checks for a pilot who acts as pilot in command (PIC) of single - piloted turbojet t ype certificated powered airplanes and for a pilot who acts as pilot in command of a multi - seat experimental turbo jet - powered jets carrying passengers 1 ; B. Allowing conversion of a foreign pilot license to a U.S. pilot certificate; C. A llowing pilot schools to use Internet - based training without requiring the schools to have a ph ys ical ground training facility , but including several requirements that those schools must fulfill;2

D. A llowing applicants to apply for a private pilot certificate and instrument rating concurrently

and allowing pilot schools and provisional pilot schools to apply for a combined private pilot certification and instrument rating course. E. E xpand ing the use of airplanes with a single, functioning throwover control wheel for providing expanded flight training. This change to § 91.109 parallels the long standing grants of exemptions that the FAA has issued to many petitioners for use with certain airplanes with a single functioning throwover control wheel . F. R evising the definition of “complex airpla ne” in § 61.1 to include airplanes that are equipped with a full authority digital engine control sy stem. **Changes with Minimal Cost and Benefit Impacts**  **that Are Not Quantified** In this final regulatory

evaluation, the FAA estimates costs for changes B, C, E and F as minimal. There are no costs to implementing the Implementation Procedures for Licensing ( IP L ) and minimal costs to allowing conversion of a foreign pilot license to a U.S. pilot certificate (B). Itis hoped that these agreements w ill lead to less work for both the pilots and the aviation authorities and more cooperation could engender cost savings and maintain the existing level of safet y. The change allowing pilot schools to use Internet - based training programs without a phy sical ground tra ining facility (C) will relieve part 141 schools from having to meet heating, lighting, ventilation, and location requirements for ground training space and is therefore cost relieving. This change also codifies current practice by adding reporting, tracking and securit y requirements to part 141 that the FAA currently requires Internet providers adhere to. The change to § 91.109 ( E ) will relieve the petitioner and the FAA of the paperwork burden associated with

1 Unless the passengers are authorized designees, instructors, or FAA personnel.3

requesting and granting exemptions. The change in definition of “complex airplane” could result in cost savings if flight schools will no longer have to keep an inventory of two different ty

pes of airplanes to meet the commercial pilot certification and flight instructor certification requirements . Instead flight schools may be able to purchase or lease onl y one t ype of airplane to meet these certification requirements because many newly manufactured aircraft will satisfy the new definition of complex airplane. However, the FAA did not estimate c ost savings of this provision since it had insufficient data to estimate the number of flight schools that will benefit from this change in definition. **Changes that Have Quantified Cost and Benefit Impacts** The following paragraphs describe in more detail those changes that have quantified cost and benefit impacts. The current § 61.58 PI C proficiency check is only required of PI Cs in aircraft that are ty pe certificated for and are designed for more than one required pilot. This rule will extend the § 61.5 8 proficiency check requirement to pilots of single - pilot ed turbojet powered air craft and to pilots of multi - seat experimental jets that are carrying passengers . 2 When § 61.58 was originally adopted, very

light jets ( VLJs ) and other single - pilot ed turboj et - powered air craft did not exist nor were they conceived of b y manufacturers or b y the FAA. Now there are a number of t ype certificated turbo - jets that can be flown with a4

single pilot . The rule will not require pilots of single - seat experimental jets or pilots of multi - seat e xperimental jets not carrying passengers or carrying authorized designees, instructors, or FAA personnel to undergo proficiency checks. This change will affect pilots who serve as PICs in turbojet powered aircraft that are ty pe certificated for single pilot operations. It will also affect pilots in command of multi - seat experimental jets carryi ng passengers . The rule as proposed b y the NPRM would have required that every 24 months the proficiency

check be in the experimental jet aircraft that the pilot is serving in as pilot in command. This caused concern among commenters to the NPRM that the rule could prove expensive to those experimental jet pilots who were authorized in several experimental jets. Under the final rule, pilots of experimental turbo jet aircraft that possess more than a single seat either b y original design, or through modification, or who carry passengers will be allowed to perform their annual proficiency checks in any

turbojet - powered aircraft, and will not be required to have the check in an experimental jet , nor will the proficiency

check examiner have to be an Experimental Aircraft Examiner ( EAE ) . Pilots of experimental turbojet aircraft that, through original design, possess onl y a single seat, will be exempt from this rule when operating such aircraft . This should alleviate the

2 Unless the passengers are authorized designees, instructors, or FAA pe rsonnel.5

commenters ’ concerns since one check annuall y i n any turbojet aircraft by

any authorized examiner will fulfill the requirement. This rule change corresponds to Proposal 2 in the NPRM Preamble and will modify § 61.58(a)(1) and (2) , (d)(1) through (d) (4) and add §61.58( d)(5) and §61.58( e) . The Agency

w ill a llow an applicant for an instrument rating to apply concurrentl y for a private pilot certificate that is appropriate to the instrument rating sought. This change corresponds to Proposals 3 and 16 listed in the NPRM Preamble and w ill modify § 61.65(a)(1) , (d)(1), (e)(1), and (f)(1), and add new paragraph (g) as well as introduce a new Appendix, Appendix M, to Part 141, whi ch w ill establish a combined private pilot certification and instrument rating course at part 141 flight schools. In this final regulatory

evaluation, the Agency

quantif ies the cost of proficiency checks , and the cost savings associated with allowing appl icants to obtain a combined private pilot and instrument rating certification concurrently . Over ten ye ars (2011 through 2020), the estimated net total costs sum to approximately $ 36.6 million ($ 25.3 million discounted by

7% and $ 31.0 million discounted by 3%). Total estimated benefits over the ten y ears are approximately $96.5 million ($66.7 million discounted by 7% and $81.8 million discounted by

3%).6

The results of this anal ys is are summarized in the table below.7

**II. Benefits**  **and Costs of C**  **ompliance** Section I described changes to parts 61 and 141. In this section, these changes will be further discussed and their cost and benefit impact anal yz ed. The lettering schema used in the previous section, of A. throu gh E ., with each letter corresponding to a specific change , will be used in this section. In this analy sis, the FAA estimated future costs for a 1 0 - ye ar period, from 20 11 through 20 20 because this time period is sufficient to evaluate the benefits and cos t of the final rule . As required b y the Office of Management and Budget, the present value of this stream of costs was calculated using discount factor s of 3% and 7 % . Benefits and c osts in this analy sis are in 20 1 0 dollars. **Benefit Estimates of Changes to the Current Code of Federal Regulations**  Benefits of avoiding accidents are expected to be $ 96.5 million ($ 66.7 million discounted by 7% and $ 81.8 million discounted by 3%.) . **Cost Estimates of Changes to the Current C ode of**  **F ederal**  **R egulations**  Total quantifiable costs of the changes , over 10 ye ars, sum to approximately $ 38.4 million, with cost savings of approximately $ 1.8 million for a net cost of $ 36.6 million ($ 25.3 million discounted by 7% and $ 31.0 million discounted by 3%) .8

**Pa rt 61 only Changes**  **– §**  **61.58 Proficiency checks** T he rule will require proficiency checks for PI Cs of single - piloted ty pe certificated turbojet - powered aircraft and for pilots of multi - seat experimental jet aircraft carrying passengers . Currentl y only persons serving as PI C of aircraft that are t ype certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember are required to take annual proficiency check rides. This proficiency check ride change corresponds to Proposal 2 in the NPRM Preamble and will modify § 61.58 to require that pilots of single - piloted certificated turbojet powered aircraft and pilots of multi - seat experimental turbojet powered aircraft carryi ng passengers complete annual proficiency check s . The final rule change differs from the change proposed i n the NPRM by lessen ing the burden on pilots of experimental jets by allowing these pilots to complete their proficiency

check s in any turbo

jet powered air craft and b y no longer requiring that the proficiency check s be in the particular experimental aircra ft in which the pilot will serve as pilot in command. The addition of § 61.58(d)(5) allows experimental pilots these additional options. The final rule also differs from the NPRM by : (1) permitting pilots of multi - seat experimental jets who have not rece ived a proficiency check within the past 12 months to continue to operate these aircraft as long as they don’t carry

passengers other than persons authorized by the Administrator and (2) excluding single - seat experimental jets from the requirement . These changes are indicated in § 61.58 (e) and (f) .9

To estimate total costs of the proficiency checks we multiplied the estimated number of pilots taking proficiency check rides in an aircraft by the estimated cost of the check ride. **Assumptions and Data**  Not every pilot who acts as pilot in command of a single - piloted turbojet - powered aircraft will incur the costs of a check ride as a result of this rule . Many pilots of ty

pe certificated aircraft take recurrent training to meet insurance requirements and take this training at part 142 training centers where the training occurs in a simulator and the school will offer the pilot a free proficiency check at the conclusion of the training 3 . We estimate that this applies to 90% of the pilots operating single pilot certified ty pe certificated jets . The remain ing 10% of the se pilots will take proficiency checks in an aircraft. The assumptions below appl y to pilots who are taking proficiency checks in an aircraft. The following assumptions are independent of whether the aircraft is ty pe - certificated or experimental.  Time required for proficiency check

– 2 hours ground, 1 - 2 hours flight;  $37.20

– airman’s time per hour ; 4

3 Annual recurrent training is required by insurers. Most of the time insurance companies require the recurrent training take place at a school, in a simulator. If this is the case, the cost to add proficiency check is minimal or zero. Sometim es insurers will accept that pilots take recurrent training in a airplane. The cost to add a proficiency check for the pilots training in an aircraft will not be minimal because the costs of an examiner and time in the aircraft will be incurred. 4 Economi c Values for FAA Investme nt and Regulatory Decisions, A G uide, GRA, Inc., Final Report , Rev ised October 3, 2007, pg. EJ - 3.10

 Travel costs for the pilot and examiner will be the same. We use an average estimated round trip airfare of $344 5 , $92 for lodging and $44 for food per day .  50% of pilots are due for a flight review every y ear and will substitute the proficiency

check for the flight review . The following data and assumptions are associated with proficienc y check rides in single pilot ty pe - certificated turbojets and apply to the 10% of pilots of ty pe certificated jets who complete checks in aircraft (and not those completing their recurrent training at a part 142 training center. ) Assumptions for those taking proficiency checks in a ty

pe certificated aircraft with an examiner ;  Average operating cost per hour for ty pe - certificated jets = $832 6

 Examiner cost for proficiency check in a t ype certificated aircraft can range from $800 to $3,000, average = $1,6 30 per check ride 7 ;  Of the pi lots who complete the check in an aircraft , 90% take the check in their own aircraft , or an aircraft they have access to, 10% rent the aircraft;  Aircraft rental c ost for proficiency check ranges from $1,800 to $4,800 for check ride including fuel 8 , average = $3,200;

5 FAA Forecast Branch. 6 Source: Aviation Week Intelligence Network, Aircraft Operating Costs Guide, Business & Commercial Aviation , August 1, 2009. We took a w eighted average of the variable operating cost for each of the type certificated aircraft. 7 Data is based on discussions with Pilot Proficiency Examiners (PPE). 8 Discussion with PPEs.11

The following data and assumptions are relevant to check rides in experimental jet aircraft. Experimental Jets As the rule allows pilots to take the tests in an y jet aircraft we expect pilots will choose minimal cost compliance, i.e., only use an experimental jet if cheaper.  Operating costs for a proficiency check in an experimental jet range from $930 to $3,250 9 ;  Examiner cost for a proficiency check in an experimental jet aircraft can range from $750 to $2000 p er check with an average of $1,273 10 per checkride  Ninety

percent of pilots take a proficiency check in their own aircraft, or an aircraft they

have access to, 10% rent the aircraft;  Cost to rent an experimental jet aircraft for a proficiency checkride ranges from $1,400 to $7,250 for the proficiency check including fuel, with an average of about $4,000 per check ride 11 ; **Cost of Proficiency Check s**  Existing FAA requirements for a § 61.58 proficiency check are detailed in 8900.2 To complete a proficiency check , the pilot has to hire a pilot proficiency examiner (PPE) , rent time in an aircraft or complete the check in a simulator as part of the recurrent training , or if using his or her own aircraft, incur operating costs including fuel and

9 Based on comments to the NPRM and di scussions with examiners. 10 Based on data offered from comments to the NPRM and discussions with Experimental Pilot Examiners.12

maintenance. So me pilots will need to travel to the test site and will therefore incur travel costs, or pay

for the costs of the examiner traveling to the pilot’s location. Time spent by the pilot taking the proficiency check also has a cost as does time traveling to th e site of the check ride. Discussions with examiners indicated that an examiner might charge up to $1,000 or more for a travel day not including expenses such as airfare or lodging . **Cost of Proficiency Check Ride in Ty pe Certificated Jet**  **s** We estimated low, high and most likely compliance cos t for those pilots taking the check in a ty pe certificated turbojet powered air craft . The lowest cost would occur if a pilot uses their own aircraft , for the check ride and live s close enough to the examiner such that no travel costs were incurred. The examiner cost would be at the low end of the range of data we collected ($800), a check ride would only take an hour of flight time so the cost of using one’s own aircraft would be $ 830 and the value of the time to t ake the check ride would be $149 ( 4 hours total time for the pilot) . The low cost is estimated at $ 1,780 per check ride. The high cost uses the high end of the examiner cost range ($ 3,0 00), and assumes the pilot rents an aircraft at $4,800 for the che ck ride. The examiner will have to travel to the pilot and will take a total of 3 day s (one day out, one day back when giving the check ride). The travel expenses will include two nights lodging and three day s food. The

11 Ibid.13

high c ost is an estimate of $ 10, 730 per check ride providing plent y of incentive for a pilot to reduce costs . For the most likely estimate we use an average charge for the examiner to give the check ride 12 of $1,630, and we assume the examiner travels an average of 5 hours to get to the location that the check ride will be given , at an additional hourly rate of $100 . We assume the examiner can do this in one day and only incurs expenses for round trip transportation and food for one day . We estimate that n inety percent of check rides completed in an aircraft are given in the pilot’s aircraft and 10% completed in an aircraft are given in a rental aircraft so we weight the average aircraft operating cost by 90% and the average aircraft rental by 10%. The details of the costs are presented in the Table 1 . **Table 1 Costs of Proficiency Checkrides in Type Certificated Jets** 14

**Cost of Proficiency Check in Experimental**  **Jet s**  We estimated low, high and most likely cost for check rides in experimental jets. The lowest cost (best case) would oc cur if a pilot used their own aircraft for the check ride and lived close enough to the examiner and the airport that no travel costs were incurred. The examiner cost would be at the low end of the range of data collected ($ 750 ), the cost of using one’s o wn aircraft would be at the low end of the data collected ($930 for the check ride) and the value of the time to take the check ride would be $149 (four hours total time for the pilot). The low cost is estimated at $ 1,830 per check ride. The high cost uses the high end of the examiner cost range ($ 2,000 ), the pilot will rent an aircraft at $ 7,250 for the check ride. The examiner will have to travel to the pilot and will take a total of 3 day s (one day out, one day

back when giving the check ride). T he travel expenses will include two nights lodging and three day s food. The high cost is estimated at $12, 059 per check ride. For the most likely

estimate , we use an average charge for the examiner to give the check ride 13 of $ 1,270 if the check ride is given in an experimental jet , and we assume the examiner travels an average of 5 hours to get to and from the location that the check ride will be given, at an additional hourly rate of $100. We assume the examiner can do this in one day and onl y incurs expenses for round trip transportation and food for one day . Ninety percent of the time the check ride is given in the pilot’s aircraft and 10% of the

12 Based on discussions with Pilot Proficiency Examiners. 13 Based on discussions with Pilot Proficiency Examiners.15

time the check ride is given in a rental aircraft , so we weight the average aircraft operating cost plu s the cost of an EAE by ninet y percent and the average experimental jet aircraft rental charge plus the cost of a PPE by 10%. The details of the c osts are presented in Table 2 .

**Table 2 Costs of**  **Proficiency Checkrides in Experimental Jets** 

**Flight Revie ws Offsetting the Costs of Proficiency Checks**  However, since a proficiency check ride can satisfy

the two hour flight review required biennially by § 61.56 ( c ) of the CFR, pilots taking an annual proficiency check ride will not have to incur the costs of the flight review. We assume that every y ear, 50% of the pilots who will have to have a proficiency check will be due for their flight review. These pilots will save the costs of the flight review because they can use the proficiency check to fulfill the flight review requirement . In calculating costs of the flight review we use the average cost of an instructor and the average cost of a non - complex airc raft , (such16

as a Cessna 172). We estimate the cost of the flight revie w is $2 5 5 as indicated in Table 3 . Further, since the pilot will no longer need to take time to do the flight review we subtract two hours of pilot time cost ($74.40 14 ) from the total cost of the proficiency check. T herefore since this cost will not have to be incurred because the pilot will be taking a proficiency

check and will not need a flight review , to derive the net cost attributed to the rule in a y ear the pilot is required to take a flight review we subtract $329 ( $2 5 5 + $74 ) from the cost of the check ride ($ 4,079 - $ 32 9 = $ 3,75 0 for a ty pe certificated jet and $ 4,694 - 329 = $ 4,36 5 for an experimental jet) . **Table 3 Cost of a Flight Review** 

Therefore, every

y ear 50% of the pilots incur the full costs of the check ride, and 50% of pilots incur incremental cost of the chec k ride which is the cost of the check ride less the cost of a flight review . 15 The net costs of the proficiency checks in the y ear a pilot is taking a flight review is $ 3,750 for a t ype certificated jet and $ 4,365 for an experimental jet.

14 $37.2 0 times 2. 15 We assume that a pilot taking a flight review would take the flight review at a school close to home and wo uld incur little or no travel expenses. Therefore, travel expenses associated with a proficiency check are still included as a cost of the rule even in the year the pilot would have taken the flight review.17

**Estimates of the Number of**  **Additional Pilot**  **in Command Proficiency Checks**  In the following paragraphs we estimate the number of additional pilot in command proficiency

checks that will be required because of this rule. Pilots who act as pilot in command of a single - piloted, turbojet - powered ty pe certificated air craft are not currently required by

the C ode of F ederal R egulations (CFR) to undergo proficiency checks, but will be with this rule . Also pilots of multi - seat experimental jets will be required to undergo pr oficiency

checks with this rule but are not currentl y required to do so. We present our logic and assumptions for estimating proficiency checks for pilots of ty

pe certificated jets and pilots of multi - seat experimental jets below. The paragraphs immediat ely below discuss our methodology f o r estimating the number of additional pilot proficiency checks in ty

pe certificated jets that will be required because of this rule . **Methodology for Type Certificated Jets**

 Estim ate total number of ty pe certific ated je ts certified for single pilots that are registered in the U.S. and increase b y 4.3% annually ;  Subtract jets that are operated under provisions that require annual proficiency checks that will satisfy § 61.58;  Multiply

resulting number of jets by 1.5 16 ( average pilots per jet) to derive number of proficiency

checks required by

rule ;

16 As we received no comments to the contrary, we accept our NPRM assumption that that each turbojet wo uld be flown by 1.5 pilots on average .18  Determine that insurance requirements result in an estimate 90% of pilots who at conclusion of insurance - required recurrent training may be able to take proficiency

checks for minimal or zero cost;  Mu lti ply

number of proficiency

checks required by

rule by 10% to derive number of proficiency

checks to be completed in an aircraft;  Estimate cost of proficiency checks in a ty

pe certificated aircraft ;  Estimate net cost of proficienc y checks in ye ar of flight review;  M ultiply 50% of estimated number of proficiency checks to be completed in an aircraft b y estimated cost of proficiency in an aircraft and 50% b y net cost of proficiency

check in flight review y ear . **Estimated Number of**  **Pr oficiency Checks for Pilots of**  **Type C ertificated**  **Jets :**  To estimate the number of pilot proficiency checks w e first identified ty pe certificated turbo - jets that are certificated to be flown single - pilot . GAMA provided us the number of deliveries of each of these models as of the end of 2009. This list does not include the Cessna 550 Bravo and the Cessna 560, which are not certificated to be flown single pilot, but which both operate under single p ilot exemptions. Pilots of aircraft (Cessna 550 and 560) operating under the single - pilot exemptions undergo annual proficiency checks under the terms of the exemptions, therefore the rule will not impose additional costs to these pilots. The table below indicates deliveries as of the end of 2009 of aircraft re gistered in the U.S.19

**Table 4**  **Number of S**  **ingle P**  **ilot T**  **ype -**  **C ertificated**  **T urbojets**  **R egistered in U.S**  **. As of December 2009** 

**Source: GAMA** Some of the aircraft identified above are operated under c urrent provisions that require the pilot in command of that aircraft to undergo proficiency checks that will satisfy § 61.5820

(61.58 (c)). A ircraft that are operated under these provisions will be removed from the single pilot certificated aircraft count under the assumption that they will only be piloted by those pilots who are required to have annual proficiency checks under the current regulations. 17 Using the Operations Safety S ys tem database (OPSS) we procured a count of aircraft that are operated under provisions of the current CFR that require proficiency checks for single pilot in command that will satisfy § 61.58. These provisions include: part s 135, and 91 K. Since pilots operating these aircraft under those provisions are required to complete proficiency

checks that will satisfy § 61.58 , we subtract these aircraft from the aircraft count. For instance, 18 of the 159 Cessna 510 airplane s delivered by the end of 2009 are used in operations that require proficiency checks of single pilots in command as well as multiple pilots in command. Operation of th ose aircraft will not cost more with this rule because pilots of those aircraft have to have proficiency checks currentl y that satisfy § 61.58 (given our assumptions). Based on the anal ys is of OPSS data, w e estimate that 15.6% 18 of the 1 , 869 aircraft de livered by the end of 2009 are used in operations where the pilots have to h ave proficiency checks that may

be used to satisfy § 61.58 pilot - in - command proficiency check (see T able 5 below) . The remaining number of aircraft represent those that are certif icated to be operated b y a single pilot in an operation that the current Federal regulation does not require a § 61.58
17 For instance, we assume an aircraft op erated by a part 135 certificate holder will only be flown by those pilots that have met the proficiency check requirements of § 61.58 (a) through the testing requirements found in part 135.21

check ride for single pilots who operate those aircraft. There are about 1,600 of these aircraft in 2010 as indicated in Table 5 below .

18 291/186922 **Table 5**  **Estimate of Proficiency Checks**

**[1] Source: GAMA [2] Source: Operations Safety System Database, FAA** 23

As we assumed in the initial regulatory evaluation, we assume each aircraft will be operated b y 1.5 pilots on average . W e estimate that about 2, 400 pilots who are not currentl y required b y regulation to undergo annual proficiency checks to operate these single piloted aircraft will operate these jets in the base year . We assume the number of these jets will grow 4.3 % annuall y from 2010 to 20 2 0 , which is the average annual growth rate of general aviation and air taxi fixed wing turbine turbojet . 19 We also assume that the number of jets for which a proficiency check is alread y required grows at the same rate of 4.3 % annually . Given our assumptions , by 20 20 there will be 3, 606 pilots who would not be required b y the current regulations to complete an annual proficiency chec k . However, some pilots not currentl y required b y the CFR to take proficiency check rides may be required by

provision s of their insurance policies to complete a proficiency check or to take recurrent training that includes a proficiency check. The FAA called for comments on the assumption that insurance carriers require pilots to undergo PIC proficiency

checks. The Exp erimental Aircraft Association commented that current insurance policies require proficiency checks for the pilots/owners of most, if not all VLJs, making the additional requirement under §61.58 redundant. The FAA received other responses indicating that insurance underwriters require the pilot take annual recurrent training. Inquiries to the insurance industry have led us to conclude that about 90% of pilots of single pilot - ty

pe certificated turbojets take annual recurrent training at flight schools to comply

with insurance requirements.24

Inquiries to part 142 training centers indicate that the schools alread y include or will include a proficiency

check at no additional charge. Therefore, the cost of complying with the rule is expected to be zero for th ose pilots who complete annual recurrent training in a simulator at a part 142 training center . As indicated in Table 6 below, we estimate 2,222 proficiency checks will be completed at the conclusion of recurrent training at a part 142 training center in 2011. The costs of these checks will be minimal or zero ; we assume they

will be zero.

19 FAA Aerospace Forecasts 2010 - 2030, Table 27 Active General Aviation and Air Taxi.25



### Table **6 Annual Projections of S**  **mall S**  **ingle P**  **ilot Certified**  **Turbojets and Number of Proficiency C**  **hecks Expected to be Taken in Simulator and** 

**Number T aken in**  **A ircraft** 

Notes: [1] GAMA provided the number of Business jets that can be flown single pilot and deliveries through 2009 Year End, starting point for 2010. [1] Annual average growth 20 10 - 2020 is 4.3%, FAA Aerospace Forecasts 2010 - 2030, Table 27 Active General Aviation and Air Taxi. [2] Of the business jets that can be flown single pilot and are registered in the U.S., the number that are operated under a provision that currently requires proficiency checks. [3] Estimated 1.5 pilots per aircraft. We estimate th at 10% of the pilots will take annual proficiency checks in an air craft . These pilots will incur costs for the proficiency checks . We estimate 247 such proficiency

checks in 2011 will be needed because of the rule . As indicated in the pilot proficienc y cost section above, we estimate that e ach proficiency ch eck in a ty

pe certificated aircraft ranges from about $ 1,780 to $ 10,730 with a most likely value of $ 4,079 . However, as explained above, since every other y ear pilots have to take a flight26

review, the net cost attributed to this rule for a proficiency check ride is $ 3,750 for 50% of the pilots each ye ar (those who would be due for the flight review ). **Cost of §**  **61.58 Proficiency Checks**  **for Pilots of Type Certificated Aircraft** To estimate the costs of amending § 61.58 to require proficiency checks of pilots in command of single pilot ty pe certificated jets we multiply the estimated number of proficiency

checks that will be completed in an aircraft by the costs of each proficiency check. We derive a cost estimate using the low, high and most likely costs. The most likely value incorporates the assumption that the pilot will substitute the proficiency check ride for the flight review requirement. To estimate total most likely costs we assumed that 5 0% of the pilots each year incur the full most likely cost of the proficiency check ($4,079) and 50% incur the incremental cost of the proficiency check

– incremental to the flight review ($ 3,750 ) . Total costs over the ten years of the anal ys is could rang e from about $ 5 . 4 million to $ 32.3 million with a mo st likely value of $ 11.8 million as indicated in the table below. 20 Since we believe that the low and high are the most extreme cases we apply discount rates to the most likely values for use in this ana ly sis. The most likely value is $ 11.8 million ( $ 9 . 9 million discounted by 3%) and ( $ 8.1 million discounted by 7%). Results are found in Ta ble 7 below .

20 Only in the most likely value do we assume that pilots will substitute proficiency checks for the flight review.27

**T able**  **7 Number and Cost of Additional Proficiency Checkrides for Single Pilots of Type Certificated Jet**  **s Resulting from the Rule** 28

The following paragraphs describe how we estimated the number of proficiency checks for pilots of experimental jets that will be required because of this rule . **Methodology for Experimental Jets**   We took the total number of p ilots certificated to fly an experimental jets:  We applied the annual growth rate forecast by the FAA for experimental aircraft to estimate number of such pilots over the next ten y ears;  We reviewed the t yp e ratings of these pilots and estimated that 57% percent of these pilots are al read y taking annual check rides and therefore 43% are not currentl y taking the check ride. We assume that all of those pilots not taking the check ride will incur the costs of check rides due to the rule 21 ;  We estimated the c ost of proficiency checks in an experimental aircraft;  We estimated the net cost of proficiency checks in y ear of the flight review;  We multiplied 50% of the estimated number of experimental pilots incurring costs proficiency

checks by

the estimated cost of proficiency in an experimental aircraft and 50% b y net cost of proficiency check in flight review ye ar. **Estimated Number of**  **Proficiency Checks for Pilots of Experimental Jet**  **s :**  Table 8 list s the experimental jet powered aircraft with two or more seats . 22 There are 1, 188 active airmen who are authorized to fly one or more of the experimental jet aircraft whose pilots will be subject to this rule (experimental jets with more than one seat). This

21 This is a conservative assumption which may overestimate costs, because some of those not currently taking check rides may actually operate solo, in which case, they will not be required to take a check ride.29

list of active pilots may

include some who will not act as pilot in command of that aircraft; in other words , they may have the rating but they

may not be active in that specific aircraft and will not need the check ride . In addition, some of the airmen on the list may already be taking proficiency

check rides w ithout the rule .

22 These aircraft could be reconfigured to have only a single seat but to be conservative we include them on the list of experimental jet powered aircraft who se pilots will have to have proficiency checks under the rule (i.e. pilots of multi - se at experimental jets).30 **Table 8**  **List of Experimental Jet Aircraft with More than One Seat**

With the rule, pilots who act as pilot in command of an experimental jet will be able to complete their annual proficiency check in an y j et powered aircraft. The pro vision for pilots in command of experimental jets is less stringent than that for pilots commanding ty pe certificated jets because every 24 months, the proficiency check ride required of the latter has to be in the particular ty pe of aircraft of which they are pilot in command (whereas every

12 months the check ride can be in any jet aircraft). The check ride for31

the PI C of the experimental jet can be in an y jet aircraft, and be given b y any examiner qualified in the specific aircraft in which the pilot is taking the check . Some of the pilots identified may be required to undergo annual proficiency checks through their employ

ment; if they

work for an airline for example. Since the revised provision as it applies to a PI C of an experimental jet does not r equire the proficiency check be in the particular ty pe of aircraft that they

operate, any

proficiency

check in a jet that meets § 61.58 will fulfill the requirement and the rule will have no costs vis - à - vis these pilots . To estimate the number of profici ency check rides over the ten ye ars of the anal ys is we increased the number of proficiency checks by

the percent growth 23 in experimental aircraft forecast b y the FAA for each ye ar of the analy sis.

23 Table 27, Active General Aviation and Air Taxi Aircraft, FAA Aerospace Forecasts FY 2010 - 2030.32

**Table 9**  **Estimated Proficiency Check R** **ides For Pilots of Experimental Jets** 

If an experimental jet pilot determines that the cost of performing the proficiency check would be less in a ty

pe certificated jet such as a Cessna, then that pilot can choose to do the check in the t yp e certificated jet ( or in any o ther jet , or in an approved simulator at a part 14 2 training center). C heck rides that the pilot might take regardless of the rule, for instance if the pilot works for a part 135, part 121, part 125 or part 91K operator and33

takes a pilot in command profic iency check in accordance with those parts , can be counted in fulfillment of this rule. We reviewed the ty pe ratings of the experimental pilots and concluded that about 57% of these pilots are already taking annual proficiency check rides in jets and the se check rides will satisfy the requirements of this rule. According to our estimates, the remaining 43% are not currently taking annual proficiency

check rides and therefore this rule will cause them to incur the cost of an annual check ride. Some of th ese pilots may operate solo in which case they would not have to take a proficiency check. However, to be conservative we assume that the rule will cause them to all undergo annual proficiency checks. As we did for t ype certificated jets, our calculati on of most likely cost incorporates the assumption that the pilot will substitute the proficiency check ride for the flight review requirement. To estimate total most likely costs we assumed that 50% of the pilots each ye ar incur the full cost of the prof iciency check ($4,694) and 50% incur the incremental cost of the proficiency

check

– inc remental to the flight review ($ 4,365 ) . **Cost of §**  **61.58 Proficiency Checks for Pilots of Experimental Aircraft**  To estimate the costs of amending § 61.58 to require pr oficiency checks of pilots in command of experimental jets we multiply the estimated number of proficiency checks by the costs of each proficiency check. We derive d cost s estimate using the low, high and most likely

costs and presented the estimate s in Ta ble 2 . The most likely

value incorporates the assumption that the pilot will substitute the proficiency check ride for the34

flight review requirement. To estimate total most likely costs we assumed that 50% of the pilots each year incur the full most like ly cost of the proficiency check ($4,694 ) and 50% incur the incremental cost of the proficiency check

– incremental to the flight review ($ 4,365 ). Total costs over the ten years of the analysis could range from about $ 10. 8 million to $ 70.9 million with a most likely value of $ 26.6 million as indicated in the table below. 24 Since we believe that the low and high are the most extreme cases we appl y discount rates to the most likely values for use in this analy sis. The most likely value is $ 26.6 million ($ 2 2.6 million discounted by 3%) and ($ 18.5 million discounted by 7%). Results are found in Table 1 0 below.

24 Only in the most likely value do we assume th at pilots will substitute proficiency checks for the flight review.35 **Table 1**  **0 Estimated Cost of Proficiency Check**  **R ides for Pilots of Experimental Jets** 36

**Benefits of Proficiency Checks for**  **Type Certificated and Expe rimental Jet Pilots**  B y extending the annual proficiency requirement to turbojet powered aircraft , the revision to § 61.58 is expected to increase safet y because it will ascertain that pilots of these aircraft have the skills to continue to operate safel y. The b enefits of this rule are the dollar value of accidents that may be prevented by

this rule . To estimate the benefits of these proficiency checks we reviewed accidents over the past 10 y ears to determine whether the accident might have been preve nted if the pilot had had the proficiency

check required b y this rule. The Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) provides us with the following values to use in estimating the benefits of preventing fatalities and injuries.

1 Maximum Abbrevi ated Injury Scale37

OST also prescribes per victim medical and legal costs as follows:

We estimate benefits b y adding the values per MAI S injury level and the per victim medical and legal costs and multiplying the result by the corresponding number of i njuries (at each injury

level) . In addition, we determined the value of destroyed and damaged t ype certificated aircraft and multiplied that value b y the number of destro yed and damaged t yp e certificated aircraft and included that value in the estimates o f benefits of avoiding accidents in ty pe certificated aircraft. 25

Sources: Economic Values for FAA Investme nt and Regulatory Decisions, A G uide, GRA, Inc., Final Report , Revised October 3, 2007, pg s . 5 - 7, 5 - 10. Budget of the United States Government: Hist orical Tables Fiscal Year 2011, Table 10.1

— Gross Domestic Product and Deflators U s ed in the Historical T ables: 1940

–2015 , GDP Chained Price Index 2010/2003 =1.18, used to convert from 2003 to 2010 dollars.

25 We estimated the value of damaged and destroyed type certificated airplanes using replacement and restoration data from the “Economic Values for FAA Investment and Regulatory Decisions: A Guide,” which were estimated based on data from sources such as the Aircraft Blue book and Aircraft Types and Price Guidelines. We found no comparable data sources for the values of experimental aircraft. Initial searches for sales prices of used exper im ental aircraft indicate that the range of values for experimental aircraft varies widely and are in flux. Therefore, w e do not estimate the benefits of avoiding damages to experimental aircraft.38

**Benefits of Proficiency Checks**  **for Type**  **- certific**  **ated Jet Pilots**  Twenty - one accidents of jets that have been certificated for single pilot operation26 that occurred over the 10 year p eriod June 30, 2000 through July 1, 2010 are reported in the National Transportation Safety Board database. W e eliminate d those accidents of aircraft with more than one pilot . We also removed a ccidents that were likely caused b y mechanical problems . If the accident report indicated that the pilot had a proficiency check ride within the year preceding the accident, we re moved the a ccident f r om inclusion in a list of preventable accidents. After we screened out accidents that would likely not have been prevented by a proficiency

check ride we had a list of 12 accidents that resulted in 3 fatalities, no serious injuries and 5 minor injuries.

**Table 1 1**  **Preventable Accidents of Type Certificated Jets 27** 

Using the values of preventing injury and the medical and legal costs that would not be incurred if we prevented similar accidents with the amendment to § 61.58 we esti mate

26 Including Cessna 510, Cessna 525, Cessna 501, Cessna 551, Phenom 100, Eclipse 500, and Hawker Beechcraft 390 Premier I/IA.39

that the benefits of this amendment to § 61.58 would be about $ 30.2 million over ten ye ars if there were no increase in t ype certificated jet aircraft. **Table 1 2**  **Value of Avoiding Accidents –**  **Type Cert ificated Single Piloted Aircraft** 

However, si nce we expect the number of single piloted ty pe certificate d jet aircraft to grow over the next ten y ears, if we do not promulgate this rule we might expect the benefits foregone to increase as well. There were approximately $ 30.2 million worth of damag es that occurred over the past 10 ye ars that might have been prevented by this rule . If we do not promulgat e this rule, we assume the s e damages will grow at the same annual rate as general aviation and air taxi jets are forecast to grow (4.3% per ye ar) from 2011 to 2020 , resulting in $ 38.3 million in total benefits and $ 2 6 .3 million in present value benefits. 28
.

27 Note: this list includes the accident of a Cessna 500 w hich appears to have been operated by a single pilot. This aircraft is not on the list of aircraft requiring a single pilot but we include it as a preventable accident because it was operated by a single pilot. 28 The estimated benefits for 2011 is the average dollar value of damages over ten years - $3.020 million increased by 4.3%. Potential damages grow by 4.3% by year to repres ent estimated benefits of the rule.40

**Table 1 3**  **Estimated Benefits of the Rule to Pilots of Type Certificated Aircraft**41 **Benefits of Proficiency Checks**  **for Experimental J**  **et Pil ots**  Thirty - nin e accidents of multi - seat experimental jet aircraft (those experimental jet aircraft whose pilots will be subject to this rule) that occurred over the ten year p eriod June 30, 2000 through July 1, 2010 are reported in the National Transportat ion Safety Board database. Accidents that were likel y caused by mechanical failure and accidents caused b y factors that would not have been checked during a proficiency check ride were removed from further consideration. We also removed the accident i f the accident report indicated that the pilot had a proficiency check ride within the year preceding the accident. After we screened out accidents that would likely not have been prevented b y a proficiency check ride we had a list of eleven accidents that resulted in eight fatalities, one serious injury

and three minor injuries.42 **Table 1 4**  **Preventable Accidents of Experimental Jets**

Using the values of preventing injury and the medical and legal costs that would not be incurred if we prevented simi lar accidents with the amendment to § 61.58 we estimate that the benefits of this amendment to § 61.58 would be about $ 50 million over 10 years if there were no increase in experimental jet aircraft. **Table 1 5**  **Value of Avoiding Accidents in Multi**  **- seat Exp**  **erimental Jets**

However, since we expect the number of experimental jet aircraft to grow over the next 10 ye ars, if we do not promulgate this rule we might expect the benefits foregone to43

increase as well. T here were $50 .6 million worth of damages that occurred over the past 10 ye ars that might have been prevented b y this rule; which is approximately $5 million per y ear. If we do not promulgate this rule, we assume this rate would grow at the same rate as experimental jets are forecast to grow.

**T able 1**  **6 Estimated Benefits of the Rule to Experimental Jets** 

**Costs and Benefits Summary**  **of §**  **61.58** The next table s summarize costs and benefits of § 61.58 to pilots of ty pe certificated jets and to pilots of experimental jets.44

We estimate that this change to § 61.58 will cost pilots of ty pe certificated jets $ 11.8 million ($ 8.1 mi llion, discounted b y 7% and $ 9 . 9 million discounted by 3 %). We estimate benefits of $ 38.3 million ($ 26.3 million discounted by 7% and $ 32.4 million discounted by

3%). Thes e results are presented in Table 1 7 . We estimate the cost to experimental pilots will be $ 26.6 million ($ 1 8.5 mil lion if discounted by

7% and $ 22.6 million if discounted by 3%) . Benefits are estimated at $58 .2 million ($40 .4 mi llion discounted by 7% and $49 .4 million if discounted by 3%). These results are indicated in Table 18 .45 **Table 1 7**  **Summary of Costs and Benefits of C**  **hanges to §**  **61.58 –**  **Pilots of Type C**  **ertificated Jets**46 **Table 18**  **Summary of Costs and Benefits of**  **C hanges to**  **§ 61.58**  **– Pilots of**  **Ex perimental Jets** 47

**Section 61.65 and Part 141 Changes**  **– Combined Private Pilot Certificate and**  **Instrument Rating A**  **ssumptions and Data**

 Average hourl y cost of average pilot flight instructor - $ 70 ; 29

 Average hourl y cost of renting an airplane - $ 1 40

– ; 30 31 and  Per hour A dministrative and clerical staff - $23.27

– . 32

 Average hourl y loaded cost for FAA Airmen Certification Branch examiners to process application for private pilot and instrument rating - $ 46.69 33

 Original private pilot certificates i ssue per y ear - 20,000;  FAA applicants for combined certificate will save 20 hours;

29 T he average cost for a pilot instructor in the air for pilot training was estimated in the NPRM to average $65 per hour. We converted this estimate to 2010 $. 30 The average cost for renting a general aviation airplane including fuel costs was estimated in the NPRM to average $135 per hour . We converted this estimate to 2010$. 31 The FAA acknowledges that there may be minor differences in what part 61 and part 141 applicants pay

for both pilot instruction and airplan e rental in the same parts of the country and that there would be different rates in different parts of the country . The FAA also acknowledges that some flight clubs are able to undercut the prices charged b y the Fixed Base Operators (FBOs). F light club s require the person to be a dues paying member and then they

get a reduction in aircraft and instructor costs. However, for this anal ys is, the FAA assumes that applicants under part 61 and part 141 would pay the same. 32 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, News Release, June 9, 2010. Use of ‘Office and administrative support’ from Table 2: Employer costs per hour worked for emplo yee compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: Civilian workers, b y occupational and industry group, June 9, 2010. Use of ‘Office and administrative support’. The fully loaded wage is $23.27. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ocwc/ect/ececrlse.pdf 33 Average hourl y rates for FG - 12 step 5 ($ 37.37 ) and FG 11 step 5 ($ 31.17 ) in the rest of th e country times 1.3625 to include fringe benefit factor.48

 Average cost savings to the FAA of administering a combined private pilot instrument rating rather than administering separately = $260. 34

34 In the NPRM, the FAA estimated the costs of administering a private pilot certificate and administering an instrument rating at $275 and $375, respectively or a total of $650. The FAA also estimat ed the costs of performing a combined private pilot certificate and instrument rating would be $400. The differential of $250 was the cost savings. This has been converted to 2010 $.49

T here will not be a reduction in aeronautical experience requirement hours for applicants obtaining combined private pilot certification and an instrument rating from a part 141 pilot school . However, as was discussed in the initial regulatory evaluation, experience at Middle Tennessee State University 

### ( MTSU ) has shown that applicants that complete the combined rat ing do so in less time than those who do not take the combined course, thus saving the former applicants time and money . Most take more than the required 70 hours. Consistent with our assumption in the NPRM, we assume that pilots obtaining the combined private pilot certificate with an instrument rating will save 20 hours compared to those obtaining them separatel y. Applicant s will also save money in that they

w ill have to co mplete onl y one, rather than two, application forms and take one combined practical test (meaning, a combined private pilot certification and instrument rating practical test). The FAA will save a minimal amount because it will not have to process the add itional application. Over the calendar ye ars 2005 through 2009, an average o f about 20,000 original private pilot certificates , were issued annuall y. 35 Overall this leve l has been declining since 2000; for the purpose of this analy sis we assume they rema in level over the anal ys is period . W e do not know how many entities operating under part 61 offer both private pilot certification and instrument ratings , so we assume only pilots training at a part 141 school will take the combined course .

35 Source: Table 17 Original Airmen Certificates Issued by Category, 20 09 U.S. Civil Airmen Statistics, FAA Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, FAA.50

O f the 653 part 141 schools, 3 86 36 schools provide courses for private pilot airplane certification and instrument airplane ratings. About 15 % of all applications for pilot certification have been graduates from Part 141 pilot schools. If we assume that the same p ercent of private pilot certificates are issued from Part 141 schools as total pilot certificates, then about 3 ,000 37 private pilot s will graduate per ye ar from part 141 pilot schools given our assumptions and approximately 1,770 38 will graduate from schoo ls providing both private pilot airplane certification and instrument airplane ratings . The FAA estimates that onl y about 2% 39 of the estimated 1,770 ( 35 annuall y) will obtain a combined private pilot and instrument rating under this new rule from a part 1 41 school .

36 There are 386 schools that offer private pilot airplane and instrument airplane, and 83 that offer private pilot helicopter and instrument helicopter. There may some schools on both lists so to be conservative we use the 386 schools as a conservative estimate. Source: NVIS database, 07 - 27 - 10. 37 20,000 times 30%. 38 59% of the part 141 schools offer both courses (private pilot and instrument rating) so we take 59% of the estimated 6,000 private pilots produced b y part 141 schools. 39 The estimate that 2% of graduates from part 141 schools will obtain a combined private pilot certificate with instrument rating was used in the NPRM. The FAA now believes the actual percent will be higher, but uses 2% here as a conservative estimate.51

For the purposes of this analy sis we assume all students who take advantage of these rule changes will be enrolled in part 141 pilot schools, but the FAA believes that there will also be Part 61 schools who will offer the combined courses. Applicants obtaining this combined private pilot certification and instrument rating will save on overall training time and airplane rental . To calculate this cost savings, the FAA will use figures discussed above, $ 70 per hour for pilot flight training , $1 40 per hour for airplane rental, $37.20 per hour for the cost of an airman’s time , and the FAA assumption of a savings of 2 0 hours . C ost savings to the applicant would be about $ 4, 944 [calculation: ($ 70 + $1 40 +$37.20 ) x 2 0 hours] . Total annual cost s avings would be $ 173,000 [calculation: 35 applicants x ($ 70 + $1 40 + $37.20 ) x 2 0 hours] , while 10 - ye ar cost s avings w ould be $ 1.7 million . The FAA estimate d that it could save $260 for each combined private pilot certificate and instrument rating it perf

ormed These savings sum to $ 9,100 annually [calculation: $2 60 x 35 applicants]. Ten - ye ar cost s avings sum to $ 91,000 . Each applicant would have to fill out one less application form; the FAA estimates that the application form for both the private pi lot certificate and instrument rating each takes 15 minutes to fill out. Using the aforementioned $37.20 per hour for an airman’s time , a quarter hour savings from filling out one less form would be $9.30 per applicant. These savings sum to $ 326 annually [calculation: $9.30 x 35 applicants]. Ten - ye ar cost s avings sum to $ 3,260 .52

Annual total cost savings for the applicants sum s to approximately $ 182,000 . The FAA would save an additional minimal amount because it would not have to process two applications. As discussed above, each applicant getting a combined private pilot and instrument rating will have to submit one less FAA Form 8710 - 1 application form to the FAA for appr oval. Thus, FAA examiners will have to process one less application for each of these applicants. It takes, on average, 10 minutes for FAA Airman Certification Branch examiners to process each application. 40 The applicable examiners earn at the FG - 11 and FG - 12 level; as shown above, their hourl y wages are $ 46.69 per hour includin g fringe benefits. FAA Airman Certification Branch examiners reviewing 35 fewer applications per y ear equals annual cost savings of about $ 272 [calculation: 35 applicants x 10 minutes x $ 46.69 per hour] . Ten - year cost savings sum to $ 2,720 . Schools who offer the combined courses would have to incur costs in modifying syllabuses. The FAA does not know how many of the schools will apply for this combined private and instrument course and called for comments as to how many of these schools would seek to o ffer such a course. The FAA did not receive comments that it could use in this analy sis indicating how man y s chools would apply . Since we did not receive comments on how many schools will modify

s yl labuses we do not develop a total cost estimate for modi fying s yl labuses. Total cost savings of combining the private pilot certification and instrument rating, over

40 Source

– AF S - 76053

10 y ears sum to $ 1.8 million ($ 1.3 million, discounted by 7% and $ 1.6 million discounted by

3%) as indicated in Table 2 1 .54

**Table 2 1**  **Total Cost Sav ings Due to**  **Applicants Applying Concurrently for Private Certification and Instrument Rating**55

**III .**  **Summary of Total Net Costs and Benefits**  The total ten year estimated cost of the rule is approximately $ 38.4 million, ten year cost savings is $ 1 .8 million and the total net cost 41 of the rule over ten ye ars is $ 36.6 million ($ 25.3 m illion discounted by 7% and $ 31.0 million discounted by 3% ) . The tot al estimated benefit over ten y ears is $ 96.5 million ($ 66.7 million discounted by 7% and $ 81.8 mill ion discounted by 3%). **Table 2 2**  **Net Costs of the Final Rule**

41 Cost less cost savings.56 **Table 2 3**  **Benefits of the Final Rule**A