Commercial Passenger-Carrying Operations in Single-Engine Aircraft under Instrument Flight Rules

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing to

revise the conditions and limitations in Part 135 for instrument flight

rule (IFR), passenger-carrying operations in single-engine aircraft.

The proposed rule will expand the passenger-carrying provisions of the

current rule, add equipment requirements, as well as maintenance

requirements to monitor engine reliability, and delete the limited IFR

provisions of the existing rule for both single and multi-engine

aircraft. Currently, operation of single-engine aircraft carrying

passengers is authorized for visual flight rules (VFR) or for limited

operations in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). Single-engine

cargo operations are authorized to operate under IFR without these

limitations. VFR flight into IMC is the most significant cause of fatal

accidents in Alaska and is a serious problem for single-engine aircraft

nationally. This action would increase the safety of single-engine,

passenger-carrying operations by allowing planned instrument flight in

the IFR system and by imposing certain other conditions and

limitations.

DATES: Comments must be received by February 3, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice should be submitted in triplicate

to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attn:

Rules Docket (AGC-200), Room 915-G, Docket No. 28743, 800 Independence

Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20591. Comments must be marked Docket No.

28743. Comments also may be submitted electronically to the following

Internet address: [email protected]. Comments may be examined in

room 915G weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. except on Federal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Katherine Hakala, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20591 (202)

267-8166/3760.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy,

federal, or economic impact that might result from adopting the

proposals in this notice are also invited. Substantive comments should

be accompanied by cost estimates, if appropriate. Comments should

identify the regulatory docket or notice number and should be submitted

in triplicate to the Rules Docket address specified above. All comments

received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be

considered by the Administrator before taking action on this proposed

rulemaking. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in

light of comments received. All comments received will be available,

both before and after the closing dates for comments, in the Rules

Docket, for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing

each substantive contact with FAA personnel concerned with this

rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this

notice must include a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. 28743.'' The

postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

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 ((703) 321-

3339), the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service ((202)

512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Bulletin

Board service ((800) 322-2722 or (202) 267-5948).

Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov

or the Federal Register's web page a http://www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs

for access to recently published rulemaking documents.

Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request

to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1,

800 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202)

267-9677. Communications must identify the notice number or docket

number of this NPRM.

Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future

NPRMs 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.

Rationale

In the past, the rationale against single-engine IFR passenger-

carrying operations centered on the hazards of losing an engine.

Analysis indicates, however, a far more significant accident category:

flight under visual flight rules (VFR) into instrument meteorological

conditions (IMC). A recent NTSB study of aviation in Alaska indicated

that VFR flight into IMC caused a disproportionate number of fatal

accidents in part 135 operations in that state. Multi-engine airplanes

are able to file and fly with passengers under IFR, while single-engine

airplanes are only able (with few exceptions) to carry passengers under

VFR. Thus, multi-engine airplanes have the advantage of contact with

ATC, position following, en route and terminal weather information, and

the higher altitude ensuring obstacle clearance and radio reception in

the IFR system. The FAA Administrator, in a November 18, 1994, letter

to pilots (``Winter Operations Emphasis Program 1994,'' available in

the docket), expressed his concern about the number of accidents that

occur when pilots are flying just below a low ceiling and collide with

the terrain. He stated that one of the safest steps available was to

take advantage of the IFR system. Aircraft flying at published cruising

altitude that guarantees obstacle clearance and radio reception have

considerably more time to glide to a landing and maneuver to a safe

landing area than those flying below the ceiling.

The number of accidents involving VFR flight into IMC is

substantial. It is concern with this safety hazard that prompted the

FAA to reconsider its limitations on single-engine IFR flight with

passengers under part 135. Additionally, the FAA has considered the

action of Canada that allowed single-engine passenger-carrying IFR

under certain conditions, and the petitions for exemption of the Alaska

Air Carrier Association and individual operators. While this action

will not eliminate VFR flight into IFR conditions accidents, it is

expected that it will reduce the accident rate.

Background

Prior to October 10, 1978, passenger-carrying, single-engine

instrument flight rule (SEIFR) operations were permitted

[[Page 64231]]

if an aircraft could descend to VFR conditions in the event of an

engine failure. This provision allowed operations in IMC or over-the-

top of a ceiling, as long as VFR conditions existed below that ceiling

(i.e., a buffer zone). In 1978, part 135 was substantially revised for

passenger-carrying operations over the top or in IFR conditions to

require an aircraft to be able to descend under VFR if its engine fails

(43 FR 46742, October 10, 1978). This revision also provided for

``limited IFR'' operations which, if VFR conditions were forecast

within 15 minutes flying time, allowed flight in IMC for the first 15

minutes of flight, and thereafter only if those IFR conditions were

unforecast. The pilot can operate in IFR conditions if unforecast

weather conditions are encountered while en route on a flight planned

to be conducted under VFR. The pilot can make an IFR approach at the

destination airport if unforecast weather conditions are encountered

that do not allow an approach under VFR. This rule had the effect of

eliminating the buffer zone provisions, restricting planned flights

under IFR in IMC, and restricting VFR over-the-top flights to scattered

or broken sky conditions. An exception to the two-pilot requirement, or

autopilot requirement, is provided for limited IFR operations in

Sec. 135.103. Limited IFR can be conducted as a single-pilot operation

in aircraft with nine or fewer passenger seats. Cargo-only, single-

engine aircraft can operate under IFR or over the top without these

restrictions.

Since 1978, the FAA has received 12 petitions for exemptions from

or amendments to Sec. 135.181 to allow the use of all or specific

models of single-engine aircraft in passenger-carrying IFR operations.

The most recent petitions are still pending. Internationally,

commercial operators in several countries have sought permission to

conduct passenger operations in IMC with single-engine aircraft.

Canada, following a cooperative effort with the engine manufacturers,

aircraft manufacturers, and users that produced a well-documented case,

has allowed SEIFR passenger-carrying operations in turbine-powered

airplanes since February 1993, with a number of specific requirements

for equipment and training. Other countries are also considering

permitting SEIFR passenger-carrying operations.

In response to the petitions, the Canadian action, and changes in

technology that have resulted in increasingly reliable engines and

aircraft systems, the FAA asked its Office of Integrated Safety

Analysis to conduct a study to determine if demonstrable differences

exist between single- and multi-engine aircraft in visual

meteorological conditions (VMC) and IMC. The study, Part 135 Single-

Engine Instrument Flight Rules Operations in Instrument Meteorological

Conditions, February 24, 1994, (available in the docket) reviewed the

basis for the Canadian action and available data from a number of

sources on powerplant/systems reliability and activity exposure data.

In September 1994, the FAA asked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory

Committee (ARAC) to review the Canadian policy on SEIFR, re-examine FAA

policies for commercial IMC and night operations by single-engine

aircraft, determine conditions or limitations that such operations

should meet, and recommend any changes. The ARAC formed a working group

that included representatives of the FAA, Transport Canada-Aviation,

the European Joint Aviation Authority, Australian Civil Aviation,

several European national aviation authorities, aircraft and engine

manufacturers, trade associations, pilot unions, and commercial

operators. The committee recommended that Sec. 135.181 be revised to

permit SEIFR passenger-carrying operations provided certain

requirements for equipment and training were met. The ARAC proposal,

although not technically limited to a particular type of aircraft,

proposed certain conditions that are met at present only by turbine-

powered aircraft. The ARAC also recommended approval of the Alaska Air

Carrier Association's (AACA) petition for exemption, which covers both

turbine-powered and reciprocating engine aircraft. Both the ARAC and

the FAA study focused on the issue of engine reliability.

Recently, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) completed

a study of operations in Alaska Aviation Safety In Alaska, (Safety

Study NTSB/SS-95/03, PB95-917006). The NTSB noted that unlike the rest

of the U.S., commuter airline service in Alaska is ``dominated by

single-engine airplanes powered by a reciprocating engine operating

under VFR and crewed by one pilot.'' After reviewing Alaska aviation

accidents from 1988 to 1993 (which include single and multi-engine

aircraft), the NTSB concluded that ``VFR flight into IMC that results

in fatal accidents continues to be the most significant safety problem

in Alaskan aviation.'' VFR flight in IMC in Alaska accounted for 67

percent (6 of 9) fatal commuter airline accidents and 47 percent (7 of

15) fatal air taxi accidents. Overall, in Alaska, VFR flight into IMC

accounted for only 15 percent of the total accidents, but 54 percent of

the fatal accidents. The NTSB recommended that the FAA proceed with

rulemaking to allow SEIFR passenger-carrying operations in turbine-

powered aircraft and evaluate whether extending the rule to all single-

engine aircraft would provide a positive effect on safety.

Prior to the Alaska aviation study, the NTSB conducted a study of

the emergency medical service (EMS) helicopters because their accident

rate was twice the rate experienced by part 135 on demand helicopter

operations and one and half times the rate for all turbine-powered

helicopters. For the report, ``Safety Study--Commercial Emergency

Medical Service Helicopter Operations'' (NTSB 1988), an exploration of

the rapidly growing commercial EMS helicopter industry and its

operations, the NTSB investigated and evaluated 59 helicopter

accidents. The Board determined that marginal weather conditions and

inadvertent flight into IMC remain the most serious hazard that VFR

helicopters encounter. ``The Board believes that although the IFR

system is not designed optimally for IFR helicopters and that the

nature of the EMS helicopter mission further complicates this problem,

the safety advantages offered by IFR helicopters flown by current and

proficient pilots are great enough that EMS programs should seriously

consider obtaining this capability.''

The Alaska Air Carriers Association in its petition for exemption

has stated, and the NTSB study confirmed, that in many areas, only

single-engine aircraft can be operated because of the limitations of

the landing strips, which severely restrict the availability of air

transport in these areas. The petitioners further stated that under the

current rule, unless clear weather is forecast over the entire route

from 15 minutes from the departure airport to the destination,

passenger-carrying, single-engine commercial operations are not

permitted. In many areas, aircraft are the only means of

transportation; weather forecasts, when available, rarely predict

continuing VFR conditions. Alaska, they stated, was particularly

disadvantaged by the current rule. Recent legislation requires the FAA

to consider the special needs of Alaska when developing its rules.

As suggested by the NTSB, the FAA reviewed accident data from 1983

to 1996 on both reciprocating and turbine engines. Data indicated that

there were 67 accidents in on-demand operations that involved VFR

flight into IFR

[[Page 64232]]

conditions; single-engine aircraft were involved in 75 percent of these

accidents. Although the number of such accidents is known, the rate of

such accidents cannot be determined because the FAA does not collect

data on the number of flights or flight hours for on-demand operations

under part 135; therefore, it is not possible to evaluate existing data

on accidents involving turbine-powered and reciprocating-powered

single-engine aircraft.

Disposition of Pending Petitions

The FAA currently has similar petitions for exemptions to

Sec. 135.181 from the Alaskan Air Carriers Association, Mid-Atlantic

Freight, Atlantic Aero, Wright Air Service, Inc., Taquan Air Service,

Inc., and Telford Aviation, Inc. In developing this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, the FAA considered the merits of each of the individual

petitions and proposed appropriate points and recommendations from

them. This notice formally disposes of those petitions.

Discussion of the Proposed Rule

The purpose of this rule is to improve the safety of single-engine,

passenger-carrying operations by allowing operators to take advantage

of the IFR system. This proposal would allow planned flight at a

minimum en route altitude that ensures obstacle clearance and ATC

communications over a published route, thereby reducing the occurrence

of continued VFR flight into IMC. Parts 91 and 135 currently require

additional aircraft equipment, pilot training, experience, and

qualification, and weather and fuel requirements to operate under IFR.

Operations under the existing limited IFR rules must meet the

requirements for IFR operations with the exception that a second pilot

or autopilot authorization is not needed. The current equipment, pilot,

weather, fuel, and other differences for VFR and IFR operations are

outlined in the Table at the end this section. This NPRM proposes to

remove the limited IFR operations and allow SEIFR operations with

additional conditions and limitations that will further enhance the

safety of SEIFR operations over VFR and limited IFR operations.

The FAA is proposing to change part 135 to allow passenger-carrying

SEIFR subject to the following conditions:

A means of engine trend monitoring would be required in

addition to the inspection requirements of 14 CFR part 91; and

Two independent electrical power generating sources or, in

addition to the original electrical power source, a standby battery

that can maintain 150 percent of the minimum electrical load for at

least one hour would be required.

In addition, the limited IFR conditions of current Sec. 135.181

would be eliminated. The proposed rule changes would not affect cargo-

only operations.

The FAA originally limited passenger-carrying SEIFR operations

because of concern about the consequences of engine loss. The February

1994 FAA study, which focused on the difference between single-engine

and multi-engine aircraft, found that data that specifically address

the issue of the reliability of single-engine aircraft in IMC under

part 135 are necessarily limited to cargo-only operations because

relatively few passenger-carrying operations occur under these

conditions. In addition, the FAA does not require manufacturers and

operators of small aircraft and powerplants to have established

databases capable of providing information needed to support

reliability evaluations. Data available collected from various sources

were found to be frequently incomplete and inconsistent in reporting

format, limiting their usefulness.

The 1994 FAA study analysis of NTSB data for part 135 on-demand

airplane accidents for 1988 to 1990 indicated that although propulsion

system accidents account for a higher percent of total accidents for

single-engine (18 percent) than for multi-engine airplanes (6 percent),

only 2 of the 24 accidents caused by propulsion systems occurred in

IMC. Accidents involving propulsion system failure in IMC appear to be

very infrequent occurrences. This can be attributed in part to the

limits on passenger-carrying operations of aircraft in IMC; however,

cargo-only IFR operations are included in these data. Weather was a

casual factor in 24 percent of all accidents; improper flightcrew

actions contributed to 95 percent of weather-related accidents.

Mechanical problems, however, were a factor in only one-single-engine

and one multi-engine weather-related accident, suggesting that

accidents involving equipment failure during flight in instrument

conditions are relatively rare events in on-demand air carrier

operations. The data also show that most accidents in IMC result in

fatal or serious injuries, regardless of the type of flight plan or

class of airplane. FAA data on part 135 accidents involving single-

engine aircraft from 1985 to 1992 indicated that the most common causes

of accidents were weather, poor in-flight planning and decision-making,

and other weather-related errors resulting from attempts to maintain

VFR flight.

Analysis of part 135 scheduled airplane accident data revealed

patterns in accident causal factors that are very similar to those for

on demand operations. Analysis of business airplane accidents that

occurred during part 91 operations provided additional perspective on

the relative contribution of systems and equipment reliability problems

to accidents. Accidents involving propulsion and other system failures

in IMC were infrequent occurrences even though part 91 operators are

not subject to the same restrictions or level of regulation and

oversight as part 135 operators.

The FAA recognizes that engine failure in a single-engine aircraft

results in an inability to sustain flight. The FAA has determined,

however, that allowing SEIFR passenger-carrying operations will enhance

safety over VFR flights in marginal weather conditions and over flights

under the limited IFR provisions of part 135. Aircraft operating under

IFR are part of the national IFR system, which includes air traffic

monitoring and control system; this system ensures that both pilots and

air traffic controllers know where the aircraft is and can work

together to avoid hazards and complete the flight safely. Immediate

emergency assistance is available in the event of an emergency. Data

from the Rescue Coordination Center have shown that should an accident

occur, aircraft that were operating under the IFR system are located

within a few hours; aircraft that were operating under the VFR system

often take days to locate.

The FAA does not expect that operators currently flying multi-

engine aircraft will switch to single-engine aircraft simply because of

this rule change; decisions about the type of aircraft to operate are

complex. Operators must weigh numerous factors when selecting aircraft,

including customer base and geographical location. Whatever choice

operators make, the FAA remains convinced that the proposed rule change

will increase safety of single-engine, passenger-carrying operations.

New Requirements

In addition to the inspections requirements of part 43, the FAA is

proposing to adopt the ARAC suggestion for engine wear and trend

monitoring. Such monitoring provides an early indication of engine wear

and increases engine reliability. The engine trend monitoring system

would require an oil analysis at 100-hour inspection or every

[[Page 64233]]

annual inspection if less than 100 hours have accrued.

The oil analysis program is an important tool in determining the

relative state of engine health. Samples of engine oil are collected at

selected intervals (usually around the 100-hour interval or less) The

oil samples are identified by make and model of engine, total time on

the engine, and last oil and filter change. The sample is then sent to

a laboratory in which the oil is subjected to a series of tests in

which the amount of trace elements, such as iron and aluminum, are

identified. A report is sent back to the operator recommending another

100 hours of operation or, because of an abnormal amount of a

particular element found in the oil, a particular maintenance action;

this action may be a simple filter change, or a borescope inspection,

other maintenance inspection/test, or a complete teardown and rebuild

of the engine. Regular oil analysis allows the operator to track the

engine's condition accurately and predict failures before they would

occur.

Current IFR requirements require a generator or generators (or

alternator) able to supply all probable combinations of continuous in-

flight electrical loads for required equipment and for recharging the

battery. The FAA is also proposing to adopt a modification of the ARAC

suggestion for two independent electrical power generating sources; the

proposed rule would specifically allow a standby battery to serve as a

second power source if the battery can maintain 150 percent of the

minimum electrical load for at least one hour. This requirement

introduces redundancy for the generator and alternator and ensures

that, if a generator or alternator fails, the aircraft will still be

able to use critical navigation and communication equipment, for a

period of time in which to effect a safe approach and landing. The FAA

will consider, and requests comments on other redundant or standby

electrical systems.

Section 135.163 (h) currently requires two independent sources of

energy (with means of selecting either) for powering all gyroscopic

instruments. Of these sources, at least one must be an engine-driven

pump or generator; each source must be capable of driving all

gyroscopic instruments, and installed so that failure of one instrument

or source does not interfere with the energy supply to the remaining

instruments or the other energy source, unless, for single-engine

aircraft, the rate-of-turn indicator has a source of energy separate

from the bank and pitch and direction indicators.

The FAA considered requiring electrical or vacuum redundancy to

drive the gyroscopic instruments, however, the precise configuration of

that redundancy is not proposed. The FAA is requesting comments on the

feasibility, benefit, and cost of two independent sources of energy for

gyroscopic instruments for single engine aircraft. If, for single-

engine aircraft, the rate of turn exception is maintained as stated in

the current 135.163(h), the FAA will require that training and testing

on emergency and partial panel operations be provided and evaluated.

Comments are further requested on whether the rate-of-turn indicator

powered from a separate source, coupled with required training and

testing, should be considered adequate for single-engine IFR passenger

operations.

Based on the comments received, the FAA may adopt additional

provisions for a redundant source of power for the gyroscopic

instruments or electrical systems in the final rule.

The FAA is proposing to delete the existing limited IFR provisions,

which allow opeators to take off in IFR conditions if VFR conditions

are forecast for the remainder of the route from a distance no further

than 15 minutes flight time for the departure airport. This revision

eliminates safety deficiencies of the conduct of ``unplanned'' IFR

flight. Under the limited IFR rule, pilots can only conduct IFR

operations en route and on an approach if weather conditions were

unforecast, which means the pilots may not have planned for IFR and may

have to develop and file a flight plan in flight, while coping with

unexpected weather conditions. Limited IFR also allows these operations

to be conducted as a single pilot operation, without a second pilot or

autopilot that is required for other IFR operations. In addition, the

limitations on weather forecasting have made this provisions

impractical in many parts of the U.S.

It is the FAA's intent that, because multi-engine operators can

already avail themselves of unrestricted IFR, the proposed removal of

the limited IFR provision in Sec. 135.181(c) (2) and the exception to

the second-in-command requirement for limited IFR operations in

Sec. 135.103 would not impact these operators. The FAA invites comments

from operators who used the limited IFR provision regarding the

economic impact of this proposal.

The proposed changes would allow SEIFR operations in single-engine

airplanes and turbine-powered helicopters that can be equipped for IFR

flight. A number of single-engine reciprocating-powered airplanes will

not be able to upgrade for IFR or would find the cost prohibitive.

Single-engine, reciprocating-powered helicopters as they currently

exist are not certificated for IFR operations. Consequently, they would

not be affected by this rule change.

Other Issues Considered

The FAA reviewed suggestions made by the ARAC and the petitions

submitted, but decided against adopting other limitations on SEIFR

passenger-carrying operations. Some of the ARAC suggestions would have

limited the rule to turbine-powered aircraft (e.g., use of auto-

ignition/continuous ignition system); the suggested requirement for

mean time between failure data and simulator training would have

severely limited the rule, at least in the short-term, to a single

aircraft, the Cessna Caravan. The FAA does not believe that such a

limitation is justified because flying IFR improves the safety of all

operations over flying VFR in marginal weather conditions and flight

under the current limited IFR provisions.

A number of suggested requirements were not adopted because they

are already covered under existing rules; for example, autopilot

training and proficiency checks are currently required. The FAA decided

that the suggested requirement for an air transport pilot certificate

for commuter operations was unnecessary because of size and complexity

of single-engine aircraft. Current requirements for single-engine, IFR

provide for at least a commercial certificate with appropriate category

and class ratings, and if required, type ratings, 1,200 hours of flight

time including 500 hours of cross country, 100 hours of night, and at

least 50 hours of actual instrument flight time. Other ARAC suggestions

were not proposed because they go beyond what is required for aircraft

certification (e.g., manual throttles and auto ignition); the FAA

decided that it was inappropriate to alter certification rules through

this rulemaking. The ARAC proposal for IFR-approved area navigation

equipment that provides immediate identification of and heading to the

nearest airport was not proposed in this NPRM. The safety benefit of

this equipment has not been established. Finally, the FAA has not

proposed the ARAC and other petitioners' suggestion for a radar

altimeter. Such altimeters are only required for Category II and III

operations; the FAA believes that the benefits of such altimeters for

other operations have not been established to a sufficient degree to

justify the considerable costs.

[[Page 64234]]

Canada adopted a limitation on flights in mountainous areas in its

SEIFR rule; the AACA in its petition proposed a limitation for

mountainous areas as defined by Sec. 95.17. The Atlantic Aero, Inc. and

Mid-Atlantic Freight Inc. 1994 petition for exemption proposed to limit

SEIFR operations to routes where the minimum en route altitude (MEA)

was no greater than 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL). Taquan Air

proposed to limit SEIFR operations to routes where the MEA was no

greater than 12,000 feet MSL. The FAA decided that a mountainous

terrain restriction was not needed. The definition of mountainous

terrain in part 95 is very broad and would limit flight unnecessarily.

Under part 95, almost all of Alaska, Hawaii, and the western third of

the country are classified as mountainous. Single-engine cargo IFR

operations and limited IFR operations are not similarly restricted. The

FAA notes that some single-engine airplanes are limited by their

service ceilings; others are limited by the lack of pressurization or

oxygen. In some areas, the lack of navigational equipment also will

limit flight over mountainous terrain. The FAA further notes that some

pressurized single-engine aircraft can cruise at altitudes that provide

much more time for making a safe landing should the engine fail.

Finally, the difficulties of finding a safe landing area for all

aircraft are not unique to mountainous terrain; densely populated areas

may pose similar problems.

Section-by-Section Discussion of Proposed Changes

Section 135.83 would be amended to change the reference to

Sec. 135.181 to make it consistent with the revised rule.

Section 135.101 would be revised to eliminate the reference to

Sec. 135.103, which would be deleted, and to delete the work

``conditions'' after IFR. Deletion of the word ``conditions'' clarifies

that any operation for which an IFR flight plan is filed must have a

second pilot or an autopilot, even if the flight can be conducted in

VFR conditions.

Section 135.103 would be deleted because it is no longer needed.

Section 135.163 would be revised to add, for single-engine aircraft

reference to alternators as well as the proposed requirement for two

independent electrical power generating sources or a standby battery.

Section 135.181 would be revised by dropping all of the limited IFR

conditions. Only the performance requirements for multi-engine aircraft

would remain.

Section 135.421 would be revised to add the requirement for engine

trend monitoring for aircraft used in passenger-carrying SEIFR

operations.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M

[[Page 64235]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE96.005

[[Page 64236]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE96.004

[[Page 64237]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE96.002

[[Page 64238]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE96.003

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

[[Page 64239]]

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several

economic analyses. First, Executive order 12866 directs that each

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned

determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its

costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies

to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities.

Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess

the effect of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting

these analyses, the FAA has determined that this rule: (1) Would

generate benefits that justify its costs and is not ``significant

regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order; (2) is not

significant as defined in Department of Transportation Regulatory

Policies and procedures; and (3) would not constitute a barrier to

international trade. These analyses, available in the docket, are

summarized below.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

The FAA proposes to update and revise the regulations to allow

single-engine, passenger carrying aircraft to operate under the safer

instrument flight rules. This proposal would require additional

conditions and requirements that will further enhance the safety of

single engine instrument flight rules (SEIFR) operations.

The cost of this proposed rule is estimated at $33.9 million ($27.5

million, discounted). The most costly provision is on the requirement

for an autopilot, which is estimated at $25.6 million ($20.9 million

discounted) and represents about 76 percent of the total. The FAA

concludes that the expected quantitative benefits would be a minimum of

$185.0 million or $129.9 million discounted. This action would increase

the safety of single-engine passenger-carrying operations because it

would allow them to operate under instrument flight rules. The proposal

would reduce the incentive for operators to conduct low altitude

operations under marginal weather conditions in order to not lose

business. It would require operators to meet the more stringent

requirements for such flights including additional aircraft equipment.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Assessment

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by

Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or

disproportionately burdened by Federal Regulations. The RFA requires an

analysis if a proposed rule would have ``a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities.'' The definitions of small

entities and guidance material for making determinations required by

the RFA are contained in the Federal Register (47 FR 32825, July 29,

1982). Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) order 2100.14A outlines

the agency's procedures and criteria for implementing the RFA.

With respect to the propose rule, a ``small entity'' is an operator

of aircraft for hire with nine or fewer aircraft. A ``significant

economic impact on a small entity'' is defined as an annualized net

compliance cost for operators of aircraft for hire which in 1996

dollars is $125,100 for scheduled operators whose aircraft have more

than 60 seats. It is $69,900 for scheduled operators whose fleets have

aircraft with seating capacities of 60 or fewer seats (other scheduled

operators) and $4,900 for unscheduled operators. A substantial number

of small entities is defined as a number that is 11 or more and which

is more than one-third of small operators subject to the proposed rule:

The analysis shows that the annualized cost of the proposed rule

(assuming no cost savings) is about $1,400 per aircraft and the

annualized safety and non-safety benefits is about $2,050 per aircraft.

Therefore, the annualized net savings is about $650 per aircraft.

The FAA has determined that operators with eight aircraft or more

would incur a significant positive impact. However, fewer than one-

third of the entities would incur a significant positive cost impact.

Therefore, the FAA has determined that a substantial number of

operators would not be positively or negatively impacted in a

significant way.

International Trade Impact Statement

This proposed rule is not expected to have any impact on trade

opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or foreign firms

doing business in the United States. The proposed rule would primarily

affect U.S. operators of aircraft for hire that provide domestic

service.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Assessment

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act),

enacted as Pub. L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995, 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), require the Federal agency

to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected

officers (or their designees) of State, local, and tribal governments

on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A

``significant intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any

provision in a Federal agency regulation that would impose an

enforceable duty upon State, local, and tribal governments, in the

aggregate, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one

year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section

204(a), provides that before establishing any regulatory requirements

that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the

agency shall have developed a plan that, among other things, provides

for notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a

meaningful and timely opportunity to provide input in the development

of regulatory proposals.

This proposal rule does not meet the cost thresholds described

above. Furthermore, this proposed rule would not impose a significant

cost on small governments and would not uniquely affect those small

governments. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule contains not information collection requests

requiring approval of the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to

the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.).

International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation

Regulations

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on

International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with

International Civil Aviation Organization Standards and Recommended

Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined

that this proposal, if adopted, would not present any major

differences.

Federalism Implications

The changes proposed by this NPRM would not have a substantial

direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National

Government and

[[Page 64240]]

the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among

the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with

Executive Order 12612, it is determined that the proposed amendments

would not have federalism implications requiring the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the

findings in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the

International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation is not significant under Executive Order 12866. In

addition, the FAA certifies that this proposal, if adopted, will not

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This

proposal is not considered significant under DOT Order 2100.5, Policies

and Procedures for Simplification, Analysis, and Review of Regulations.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 135

Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety, Single-engine

aircraft.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 14 CFR part 135 is

proposed to be amended as set forth below:

PART 135--AIR TAXI OPERATORS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS

1. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709,

44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.

2. Section 135.101 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 135.101 Second in command required under IFR.

Except as provided in Sec. 135.105, no person may operate an

aircraft carrying passengers under IFR unless there is a second in

command in the aircraft.

3. Section 135.103 is removed and reserved.

4. Section 135.163 is amended to revise paragraphs (f) and (g) to

read as follows:

Sec. 135.163 Equipment requirements: Aircraft carrying passengers

under IFR.

* * * * *

(f) For a single-engine aircraft:

(1) two independent electrical power generating sources each of

which is able to supply all probable combinations of continuous

inflight electrical loads for required instruments and equipment; or

(2) in addition to single electrical power generating source, a

standby battery that is capable of providing 150 percent of the minimum

electrical load for at least one hour to operate navigation and

communication equipment.

(g) For multi-engine aircraft, at least two generators or

alternators each of which is on a separate engine, of which any

combination of one-half of the total number are rated sufficiently to

supply the electrical loads of all required instruments and equipment

necessary for safe emergency operation of the aircraft except that for

multi-engine helicopters, the two required generators may be mounted on

the main rotor drive train; and

* * * * *

5. Section 135.181 is amended to revise paragraph (a)(1) and (c) to

read as follows:

Sec. 135.181 Performance requirements: Multi-engine aircraft operated

over-the-top or in IFR conditions.

(a) * * *

(1) Operate a single-engine aircraft carrying passengers over-the-

top; or

* * * * *

(c) Without regard to paragraph (a) of this section, if the latest

weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate that

the weather along the planned route (including takeoff and landing)

allows flight under VFR under the ceiling (if a ceiling exists) and

that the weather is forecast to remain so until at least 1 hour after

the estimated time of arrival at the destination, a person may operate

an aircraft over-the-top.

* * * * *

6. Section 135.421 is amended to add paragraph (c) to read as

follows:

Sec. 135.421 Additional maintenance requirements.

* * * * *

(c) For each single engine aircraft to be used in passenger-

carrying IFR operations, each certificate holder must incorporate into

the manufacturer's recommended maintenance program or FAA approved

maintenance program, an engine trend monitoring program including an

oil analysis at each 100 hour interval and a record of the findings.

Issued in Washington, DC. on November 21, 1996.

Thomas C. Accardi,

Director, Flight Standards Service.

[FR Doc. 96-30365 Filed 12-2-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M