Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. XX-Mitsubishi MU-2B Series Airplane Special Training, Experience, and Operating Requirements, 56905-56919 [06-8310]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Applicability
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13
by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):
Bae Systems (Operations) Limited (Formerly
British Aerospace Regional Aircraft):
Docket No. FAA–2006–25920;
Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–137–AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) The FAA must receive comments on
this AD action by October 30, 2006.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to the airplanes
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of
this AD, certificated in any category, having
lift spoiler jacks with part number (P/N)
P308–45–0002, P308–45–0102, or P308–45–
0202.
(1) All BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Model BAe 146–100A, –200A, and –300A
series airplanes.
(2) All Model Avro 146–RJ70A, 146–
RJ85A, and 146–RJ100A airplanes.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from a review of all
system components as part of the lifeextension program for the affected airplanes
that indicated the fatigue life of certain lift
spoiler jacks cannot be extended from the
current life limit. We are issuing this AD to
prevent failure of the lift spoiler jack, and
consequent increased drag and
uncommanded roll inputs, which could
56905
reduce the flightcrew’s ability to control the
airplane.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the
actions required by this AD performed within
the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Calculating the Life Limit
(f) Within 18 months after the effective
date of this AD: Calculate the current life of
each lift spoiler jack in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of BAE
Systems (Operations) Limited Modification
Service Bulletin ISB.27–178, dated January
14, 2005.
Note 1: BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Modification Service Bulletin ISB.27–178
refers to the service information listed in
Table 1 of this AD as additional sources of
service information for the actions in
paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD.
TABLE 1.—ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF SERVICE INFORMATION
This service document—
Is an additional source of service information for—
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Modification Service Bulletin
SB.27–179–70675A, dated January 19, 2005.
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.05–
005, Revision 1, dated June 9, 2005.
Smiths Service Newsletter P308–27–003, dated March 12, 2004 ..........
Replacing lift spoiler jacks having P/N P308–45–0002 and 0102.
Replacement
(g) Within 18 months after the effective
date of this AD or before the accumulation
of 55,000 total flight cycles on the lift spoiler
jack, whichever occurs later: Replace each P/
N P308–45–0002, P308–45–0102, or P308–
45–0202 lift spoiler jack with a serviceable
unit in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations)
Limited Modification Service Bulletin
ISB.27–178, dated January 14, 2005.
Thereafter, replace each lift spoiler jack with
a serviceable unit at intervals not to exceed
55,000 flight cycles.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
(i) European Aviation Safety Agency
airworthiness directive 2006–0138, dated
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:09 Sep 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
May 23, 2006, also addresses the subject of
this AD.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
September 20, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E6–15948 Filed 9–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 61, 91, 135
(h)(1) The Manager, International Branch,
ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested in accordance with
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in
accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA
Flight Standards Certificate Holding District
Office.
Related Information
Calculating the theoretical life when complete utilization records do not
exist.
Resolving anomalies with the P/Ns.
SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing a
Special Federal Aviation Regulation
(SFAR) applicable to the Mitsubishi
MU–2B series airplane that would
create new pilot training, experience,
and operating requirements. Following
an increased accident and incident rate
in the MU–2B series airplane, the FAA
conducted a safety evaluation of the
MU–2B series airplane and found that
changes in the training and operating
requirements for that airplane are
needed. These proposed regulations
would mandate additional operating
requirements and improve pilot training
for the MU–2B series airplane.
[Docket No. FAA–2006–24981; Notice No.
06–14]
DATES:
RIN 2120–AI82
ADDRESSES:
Special Federal Aviation Regulation
No. XX—Mitsubishi MU–2B Series
Airplane Special Training, Experience,
and Operating Requirements
Federal Aviation
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Send your comments on or
before October 30, 2006.
You may send comments to
Docket Number FAA–2006–24981 using
any of the following methods:
• Department of Transportation
(DOT) Docket Web site: Go to https://
dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions
for sending your comments
electronically.
• Government-wide rulemaking Web
site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
56906
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
and follow the instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For more information on the
rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Privacy: We will post all comments
we receive, without change, to https://
dms.dot.gov, including any personal
information you provide. For more
information, see the Privacy Act
discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: To read background
documents or comments received, go to
https://dms.dot.gov, at any time or to
Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete
Devaris, Federal Aviation
Administration, General Aviation and
Commercial Division AFS–820, Room
835, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202)
493–4710; facsimile (202) 267–5094; or
e-mail: Peter.Devaris@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to
participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written comments, data, or
views. We also invite comments relating
to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result
from adopting the proposals in this
document. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the
proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data. We ask that you send
us two copies of written comments.
We will file in the docket all
comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive
public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking.
The docket is available for public
inspection before and after the comment
closing date. If you wish to review the
docket in person, go to the address in
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:43 Sep 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
You may also review the docket using
the Internet at the Web address in the
ADDRESSES section.
Privacy Act: Using the search function
of our docket Web site, anyone can find
and read the comments received into
any of our dockets, including the name
of the individual sending the comment
(or signing the comment on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov.
Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive
on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments
filed late if it is possible to do so
without incurring expense or delay. We
may change this proposal in light of the
comments we receive.
If you want the FAA to acknowledge
receipt of your comments on this
proposal, include with your comments
a preaddressed, stamped postcard on
which the docket number appears. We
will stamp the date on the postcard and
mail it to you.
Proprietary or Confidential Business
Information
Do not file in the docket information
that you consider to be proprietary or
confidential business information. Send
or deliver this information directly to
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document. You must mark the
information that you consider
proprietary or confidential. If you send
the information on a disk or CD–ROM,
mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM
and also identify electronically within
the disk or CD–ROM the specific
information that is proprietary or
confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are
aware of proprietary information filed
with a comment, we do not place it in
the docket. We hold it in a separate file
to which the public does not have
access, and place a note in the docket
that we have received it. If we receive
a request to examine or copy this
information, we treat it as any other
request under the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We
process such a request under the DOT
procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy using
the Internet by:
(1) Searching the Department of
Transportation’s electronic Docket
Management System (DMS) Web page
(https://dms.dot.gov/search);
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and
Policies Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
(3) Accessing the Government
Printing Office’s Web page at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
You can also get a copy by sending a
request to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to
identify the docket number, notice
number, or amendment number of this
rulemaking.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The Federal Aviation
Administration’s (FAA) authority to
issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code.
Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator to
issue, rescind, and revise the rules. This
rulemaking is promulgated under the
authority described in Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, Part A, Air
Commerce and Safety, Subpart III,
Safety, Section 44701, General
Requirements. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations setting the minimum
standards for practices, methods, and
procedures necessary for safety in air
commerce. This regulation is within the
scope of that authority because it will
set the minimum level of safety to
operate the Mitsubishi MU–2B series
airplane.
Background
History
In the 1950s, Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries (MHI) developed the MU–2B
series airplane equipped with state-ofthe-art turboprop engines. The MU–2B
design provided a high-wing loading in
cruise configuration, the capability of
carrying nine passengers in a
pressurized cabin, a highly efficient
double-slotted Fowler flap system
designed to run the full span of the wing
to achieve short field takeoff and
landing capability, and a spoiler system
for roll control. MHI produced 764 MU–
2B series airplanes with 397 airplanes
on the U.S. registry as of August 2005.
The FAA type certificated the MU–2B
airplane in November 1965; the type
certification basis was Civil Aviation
Regulation (CAR) 10, which required
compliance with a combination of CAR
3 standards and special conditions. CAR
3 standards did not require a cockpit
checklist for the MU–2B, nor was the
airplane required to demonstrate the
ability to complete the takeoff climb
with one engine inoperable.
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
At first, the MU–2B was popular with
corporate and business users. MHI
eventually produced 13 different
models with two basic categories of
fuselage length: a short-body and a longbody design. Over the years, corporate
and business aviation has switched to
other more modern jet airplanes. As a
result, the MU–2B is now used mainly
in air taxi operations (especially cargo
hauling) and as a personal-use airplane.
Of the 397 of these airplanes on the U.S.
registry, the majority are operated under
the requirements of 14 CFR part 91 as
personal-use airplanes. As of April
2006, 64 MU–2B’s were being flown by
18 different part 135 operators within
the United States.
This shift to air-taxi and personalflight operations increased the exposure
of the MU–2B to certain known hazards:
more frequent night flights; a
significantly higher number of hours
flown than in previous operations; an
increase in single-pilot operations; and
operation by pilots who may not be
getting the level and frequency of
training that corporate pilots typically
receive. This shift in use may have
resulted in an increase in the accident
rate. Over a 2-year period from 2004–
2005, the MU–2B series airplane has
been involved in 12 accidents with a
total of 14 fatalities.
Statement of the Problem
In response to the increasing number
of accidents and incidents involving the
MHI MU–2B series airplane, the FAA
began a safety evaluation of the MU–2B
in July 2005. The FAA, with the
assistance of pilots and maintenance
personnel both inside and outside the
FAA, evaluated the design, operations,
training, and maintenance of the MU–
2B series airplane to determine if this
airplane continues to meet the required
certificated minimum level of safety and
to determine what steps may be
necessary to ensure their continued safe
operation.
Performing the safety evaluation
provided an in-depth review and
analysis of MU–2B series airplane
accidents, incidents, safety data, pilot
training requirements, and engine
reliability. The safety evaluation
employed new analysis tools that
provided a more detailed root cause
analysis of the service history problems
of the MU–2B than was previously
possible.
During the safety evaluation, the FAA
convened a FAA Flight Standardization
Board (FSB) to evaluate proposed
training, checking, and currency
requirements for pilots operating the
MU–2B series airplane. The FSB
reviewed a proposed MHI training
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:43 Sep 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
program, and MHI developed a
standardized cockpit checklist. The FSB
conducted a human factors evaluation
to determine if average pilots, without
exceptional skills, can perform various
in-flight procedures during high
workloads and if automation can reduce
pilot workloads and enhance safety. A
copy of the Mitsubishi Model MU–2B
Flight Standardization Board Report
dated January 23, 2006, has been placed
in the Rules Docket (FAA–2006–24981).
Some of the proposed requirements in
this SFAR are derived from the FSB
report.
During the safety evaluation process,
more than 20 MU–2B pilot training
programs were evaluated, including 3
offered by commercial training
providers. There was little
standardization in how these programs
addressed normal, abnormal, and
emergency procedures. Only a few
emphasized the different handling
characteristics of the MU–2B airplane or
specialized operational techniques. The
FAA determined that it is essential that
all flight training be conducted with a
single standardized training program
that reflects piloting procedures as
found in the Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM). A standardized flight training
program that emphasizes proper
operational technique is critical to the
safe operation of the MU–2B.
The results of FAA’s safety evaluation
concluded that the MU–2B series
airplane is a complex airplane requiring
operational techniques not typically
used in other light turboprop airplanes.
Operationally, it is more similar to
turbo-jet airplanes that require a type
rating. A type rating is not required for
a pilot-in-command (PIC) to operate the
MU–2B series airplane because it is not
turbo-jet powered and is not considered
a large aircraft [see 14 CFR 61.31(a)].
The FAA could require a type rating by
amending the type certification of the
MU–2B. However, a type rating would
not require annual or bi-annual
recurrent training. The FAA determined
that a type rating alone would not
achieve the desired level of safety.
Mandating training requirements that go
beyond the requirements of a type rating
was determined to be necessary to
ensure the safe operation of this
airplane.
The Safety Evaluation Team and the
FSB concluded that safe operation of the
airplane requires initial and annual
recurrent pilot training. This training
must be standardized to be effective.
MHI developed a standardized flight
training program. The FAA evaluated a
draft of this training program during the
FSB process. The FSB determined that
use of the flight training program
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56907
provided a significant increase in safety.
MHI further refined the training
program and submitted it to the FAA for
approval. The FAA granted initial
approval to the MHI MU–2B Training
Program (Part Number YET 05301) in
July 2006. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
of America (MHIA) distributed Revision
1 of the training program for use by the
operators of the MU–2B in August of
2006. Training also commenced in
August, 2006. The FAA-approved MHI
MU–2B Training Program (Part Number
YET 05301) is considered to be
compliant with the training
requirements of this proposed SFAR
and most of the recommendations of the
FSB report. Credit will be given for
training conducted prior to the effective
date of the proposed SFAR only if that
training is conducted in accordance
with the MHI MU–2B Training Program
(Part Number YET 05301). A copy of
this training program has been placed in
the DOT docket for this rulemaking. The
FAA will seek approval from the
Director of the Federal Register to
incorporate by reference the MHI MU–
2B training program (Part Number YET
0530) in the SFAR.
This proposal allows certain training
to be conducted in a flight training
device (FTD) or the MU–2B airplane.
Any FTD training, in order to meet the
requirements of this SFAR, must be
conducted in a Level 5 or higher FTD
that has been specifically approved by
the FAA as an MU–2B training device.
The FTD must be representative of an
MU–2B cockpit and have flight
characteristics similar to a MU–2B
airplane.
The FAA reviewed the certification
requirements for the MU–2B and found
that it met the applicable certification
basis. However, the airplane was type
certificated before the requirement for a
standardized cockpit checklist was in
effect. Therefore, operators of the MU–
2B have developed and use their own
non-standard, non-FAA approved
checklists. This lack of standardization
generates a variety of operational
procedures. During the safety evaluation
the FAA received requests for a
standardized checklist, developed by
the manufacturer, found acceptable to
the FAA, and reflective of the best
operational procedures for this model
airplane. The FAA’s test pilots
evaluated a standardized checklist
developed by MHI, and after
modification by the manufacturer,
found it to be a significant safety
improvement. A standardized cockpit
checklist that emphasizes proper
operational procedures is critical to the
safe operation of the MU–2B series
airplane.
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
56908
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
MHI has developed a standardized
checklist for the Mitsubishi MU–2B–60
model. This checklist has been accepted
by the FAA’s MU–2B Flight
Standardization Board. MHI is in the
process of developing checklists for the
remaining models. All checklists are
expected to be completed by December
31, 2006. A copy of the accepted
Mitsubishi MU–2B–60 checklist has
been placed in the Rules Docket. This
checklist addresses the most complex
model of the MU–2B airplane. The other
checklists are expected to be similar in
content where applicable. These
checklists will be consistent with
known configurations of the airplane as
originally delivered or later modified
and incorporated by MHI into the AFM.
Copies of the other checklists will be
posted to the docket as they become
available.
The FAA is proposing that all
operators have onboard the airplane,
accessible for each flight at the pilot
station, a MHI MU–2B series airplane
checklist accepted by the MU–2B Flight
Standardization Board or other MU–2B
series airplane checklist that has been
accepted by the MU–2B Flight
Standardization Board. This checklist
must be used by the flight crewmembers
when operating the airplane.
Federal aviation regulations allow
operators to operate their aircraft in
accordance with an approved AFM.
Some aircraft are operating today with
the original AFM. These same AFMs
have been revised numerous times;
however, some operators may not have
revised their AFMs, nor elected to
incorporate the later revisions from the
manufacturer. Many of these revisions
were prepared to enhance safe operation
of the MU–2B and were a direct result
of the Special Certification Reviews and
icing studies conducted by the FAA in
1984 and 1997. The FAA is proposing
that all operators have onboard the
airplane, and accessible during each
flight at the pilot station, a specific
revision level of the AFM (see Table 1
in the SFAR). The proposed rule would
allow the operator to have onboard the
airplane, and accessible for each flight
at the pilot station, FAA-approved
revisions issued after the effective date
of the SFAR. Copies of the AFMs have
been placed in the DOT docket for
review by the public. The FAA will seek
approval from the Director of the
Federal Register to incorporate by
reference the MHI MU–2B Airplane
Flight Manuals in the SFAR.
A pilot workload evaluation was
conducted to determine if safety would
be enhanced with the use of an
autopilot during single-pilot instrument
flight rules (IFR) operations. Many of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:43 Sep 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
the recent accidents involved single
pilot night-time IFR operations in highdensity terminal areas with high pilot
workloads. Using techniques developed
by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, testing showed a
significant reduction in single pilot
workload and stress and improved
performance when an autopilot was
used in actual flight conditions. In
addition, the FAA has determined that
use of an autopilot provides a level of
safety comparable to a two-pilot crew
and therefore does not propose
requiring a second crew member. The
FAA invites comment on whether there
are advantages to requiring two crew
members that exceed the safety benefits
of requiring an autopilot.
The safety evaluation also looked at
maintenance requirements for the MU–
2B series airplane and recommended
that all maintenance performed on the
MU–2B must be done using current
maintenance manuals and the latest
instructions for continued
airworthiness. Existing rules, 14 CFR
43.13 and 65.81, already address
maintenance requirements and the need
to use the current and correct manuals.
Including this recommendation in the
SFAR would result in redundant
regulations. Therefore, the FAA is not
proposing any new maintenance
requirements in this SFAR. However, in
November of 2005, the FAA issued
Flight Standards Information Bulletin
for Airworthiness 05–11 (FSAW), which
focused on maintenance procedures.
The FSAW required that all FAA
maintenance inspectors with oversight
of MU–2B operators inspect a variety of
maintenance items and procedures and
report their findings. This FSAW is still
active but the actions required by it are
near completion. The FAA has noted a
high level of compliance with existing
rules and no unsafe conditions have
been identified. The FAA continues to
monitor the airworthiness of the MU–2B
series airplane and will take appropriate
action if an unsafe condition is
identified.
The MU–2B Series Airplane Safety
Evaluation Report of December 2005
recommended that the FAA begin a
rulemaking action to address several of
the recommendations within the report.
Based on the safety evaluation
recommendations, the FAA proposes an
SFAR addressing the following items:
—Specific pilot training and testing of
pilot skills.
—A standardized, user-friendly pilot
checklist.
—A requirement to update the AFM.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
A copy of the safety evaluation report
has been placed in the Rules Docket
(FAA–2006–24981) for this rulemaking.
The Proposed Regulation
Applicability. The proposed SFAR
would apply to all persons who operate
the MU–2B airplane including those
who manipulate the controls, or act as
pilot-in-command (PIC). The proposed
SFAR also applies to those persons who
provide pilot training for the Mitsubishi
MU–2B series airplane. The
requirements proposed in this SFAR
would be in addition to the
requirements in 14 CFR parts 61, 91,
and 135.
Compliance. The FAA proposes that
180 days after the effective date of the
final rule, no person may act as PIC,
manipulate the controls, or provide
pilot training on a Mitsubishi MU–2B
series airplane unless that person meets
the applicable requirements of the
proposed SFAR. The FAA believes that
180 days should give the affected
operators of this airplane time to receive
the necessary training and meet the
requirements of the SFAR. While the
FAA realizes that 180 days is a short
period of time, the agency must balance
the compliance timeframe with the need
to act quickly to prevent further
accidents.
Required Pilot Training. The FAA
proposes that no person may
manipulate the controls or act as PIC of
a Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane for
flight unless the applicable
requirements for ground and flight
training on initial/transition,
requalification, recurrent, or differences
pilot training specified in Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries MU–2B Training
Program (Part Number YET 05301,
dated July 27, 2006, Revision 1, or a
FAA-approved revision issued after the
effective date of this SFAR) are
completed and that person’s logbook
has been endorsed by a certificated
flight instructor meeting the
qualifications for MU–2B flight
instructors listed in the SFAR.
As used in the proposed SFAR,
initial/transition training would apply
to any pilot without documented MU–
2B pilot operating experience in the last
2 years. Requalification training would
apply to any pilot who has documented
MU–2B operating experience in the last
2 years, but does not have documented
training to an FAA-approved training
program for the MU–2B meeting the
eligibility requirements of this SFAR for
recurrent training. Recurrent training
would apply to any pilot who has
completed and has documented training
to an FAA-approved training program
for the MU–2B that meets the
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
requirements of this SFAR in the
preceding 12 months and is MU–2B
current in accordance with this SFAR.
Differences training would apply to any
pilot who operates more than one MU–
2B model. Differences training is in
addition to the requirements for initial/
transition, requalification, or recurrent
training. If for example, a person
operates two models of the MU–2B, that
person would be required to receive
differences training between these
models one time only. If a person
intended to operate three or more
models of the MU–2B, additional onetime difference training would be
required.
The FAA proposes that no person
may manipulate the controls or act as
PIC of a Mitsubishi MU–2B series
airplane for the purpose of flight unless
that person completes annual recurrent
pilot training in the Special Emphasis
Items, pages 4 and 5, and all items listed
in Training Course Final Phase Check,
Appendix A, as specified in Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries MU–2B Training
Program (Part Number YET 05301,
dated July 27, 2006, Revision 1, or a
FAA-approved revision issued after the
effective date of this SFAR). This
includes training in the following areas
of operation: takeoff and landing, steep
turns and stalls, emergency operations
(various scenarios with one engine not
providing thrust), both precision
approach and non-precision approach
procedures for instrument rated pilots,
and areas of special emphasis (stall
awareness, minimum controllable
airspeed awareness, icing conditions,
and airspeed management). The pilot
must satisfactorily complete the training
and that pilot’s logbook must be
endorsed by a certificated flight
instructor meeting the qualifications for
flight instructors listed in the proposed
SFAR.
The existing rule, 14 CFR 135.351(c),
currently allows a 14 CFR 135.293
check be substituted for recurrent flight
training. Because of the importance of
recurrent training, the exception to
recurrent training as described in 14
CFR 135.351(c) would not be allowed
for the MU–2B airplane. Accordingly,
the FAA has calculated the full
estimated cost associated with recurrent
training in the initial regulatory
evaluation for the proposed rule. The
FAA notes that some of the recurrent
training requirements could be
incorporated into portions of the
existing 135.293 check. Thus, the cost of
recurrent training would be offset to
some extent by a reduction in costs
associated with the 135.293 check.
Satisfactory completion of a flight
review to satisfy 14 CFR 61.56 is valid
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:43 Sep 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
for operation of an MU–2B only if that
flight review is conducted in an MU–2B
series airplane. A flight review
completed in the MU–2B series airplane
satisfies the requirement for the flight
review in 14 CFR 61.56 for all other
aircraft except the Robinson R22/R44
[see SFAR 73, Section 2(c)].
Satisfactory completion of an FAA
Wings Program, as described in 14 CFR
61.56(e) and Advisory Circular Number
61–91H, may not be substituted for the
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane
annual recurrent flight training.
Depending on the type of training
required, credit may be given for
training performed in the airplane, flight
training device, or simulator as
described in the Mitsubishi MU–2B
Training Program, Part Number YET
05301, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2006.
The FAA would require that all
training conducted in the MU–2B series
airplane be performed using the
procedures and techniques as described
in the applicable MHI Airplane Flight
Manual, (see Table 1) and using a MHI
MU–2B checklist accepted by the MU–
2B Flight Standardization Board or
other MU–2B series airplane checklist
that has been accepted by the MU–2B
Flight Standardization Board. The
proposed rule would allow the use of
FAA-approved AFM revisions issued
after the effective date of the SFAR.
Aeronautical Experience. The FAA
Safety Evaluation Team and the FSB
determined that the MU–2B is more
complex than most light twin engine
airplanes and other light turbine
airplanes within its class. Safe operation
of the MU–2B requires a high degree of
pilot skill and discipline typically found
in type-rated, transport category
airplanes. The FAA determined that a
minimum standard of pilot experience
in multiengine airplanes would help to
improve safety for the MU–2B. The FAA
proposes that no person may act as PIC
of a Mitsubishi MU–2B airplane for
purposes of flight unless that person has
logged a minimum of 100 flight hours of
PIC time in multiengine airplanes.
Flight Instructors. The FSB
determined that strict adherence to the
normal, abnormal, and emergency flight
procedures are critical to the safe
operation of the MU–2B. The MU–2B
has many differences from comparable
multiengine airplanes. Differences
include the airplane design, with full
span wing spoilers and high drag gear
doors with lengthy cycle times. Analysis
and review of common operating
practices show that application of
procedures for other multiengine
airplanes can be detrimental when
performed in the MU–2B. For example,
many multiengine airplane curriculums
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56909
teach a procedure for engine failure just
after takeoff that requires the pilot to
apply maximum power, retract the
landing gear and flaps, identify and
verify the failed engine, and then fix or
feather the engine. However, if a pilot
applies this technique to the MU–2B
series airplane, it would be contrary to
operational procedures developed by
MHI. The resulting negative transfer of
knowledge can impede performance
during abnormal and emergency
situations. Effective instruction in the
MU–2B requires a thorough
understanding of all commonly taught
multiengine procedures as well as the
differences between them and those for
the MU–2B. Understanding the
differences between these techniques
can only come from extensive
operational experience in the MU–2B as
well as other multiengine airplanes. The
FAA proposes that no flight instructor
may provide instruction or conduct a
flight review in a Mitsubishi MU–2B
series airplane unless that instructor
meets the flight instructor experience
and currency requirements of this SFAR
before giving flight instruction in the
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane. All
flight instructors (Airplane) who
provide flight training in the Mitsubishi
MU–2B series airplane would be
required to have a minimum total PIC
time of 2000 flight hours, 800 hours PIC
in multiengine airplanes, and 300 hours
PIC time in the Mitsubishi MU–2B
series airplane. Fifty flight hours of
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane PIC
experience must have been within the
last 12 months. Flight instructors
(Simulator or Flight Training Device)
would be required to have a minimum
total PIC time of 2,000 flight hours and
800 hours PIC in multiengine airplanes.
For flight instructors (Simulator or
Flight Training Device), 50 flight hours
of Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane
PIC experience, or 50 hours providing
simulator or flight training device
instruction, must have been within the
last 12 months.
The FAA proposes that for the
purpose of flight checking, designated
pilot examiners, training center
evaluators, and check airmen must have
completed the appropriate qualification
in the Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane
in accordance with sections 3 and 6 of
this SFAR. The FAA believes that an
effective evaluation of an airman’s skill
can only be assessed by individuals
with a high degree of knowledge of the
latest techniques, training profiles, and
procedures for the MU–2B.
The FAA proposes that designated
pilot examiners and check airmen must
have 100 hours PIC flight time in the
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane and
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
56910
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
must maintain currency in accordance
with section 6 of this SFAR. The FSB
determined this to be a minimum
acceptable experience level for
individuals administering practical tests
and other demonstrations of
proficiency.
All training conducted in the
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must
be done in accordance with the
procedures and techniques as described
in the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU–
2B Training Program (Part Number YET
05301, dated July 27, 2006, Revision 1,
or a FAA-approved revision issued after
the effective date of this SFAR) and the
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries FAAapproved Airplane Flight Manual.
The FAA proposes that all training
conducted in the Mitsubishi MU–2B
series airplane must be done using a
MHI MU–2B checklist accepted by the
MU–2B Flight Standardization Board or
other MU–2B checklist that has been
accepted by the MU–2B Flight
Standardization Board, and identified in
section 7, paragraph (c) of the
operational requirements of the
proposed SFAR.
Currency Requirements and Flight
Review. The complexity of the airplane
and differences in operational
procedures requires that recurrent
training and testing be done only in the
MU–2B. During the safety evaluation
and FSB evaluation, the exclusiveness
of the MU–2B for recurrent training and
testing was examined. Through this
process the FAA determined that all
recurrent training, testing, and flight
reviews must be conducted in the MU–
2B. Therefore, the FAA is proposing the
landing currency requirements of 14
CFR 61.57 must be maintained in the
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane.
Landings in any other multiengine
airplanes would not meet the landing
currency requirements for the
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane.
Landings in either short-or long-body
Mitsubishi MU–2B model airplanes may
be credited toward landing currency in
both MU–2B model groups.
The FAA has determined that
instrument currency does not need to be
maintained exclusively in the MU–2B.
Therefore, instrument experience
obtained in other category and class of
airplanes may be used to satisfy the
instrument currency requirements of 14
CFR 61.57.
Satisfactory completion of the flight
review required by 14 CFR 61.56 would
be valid for operation of an MU–2B
series airplane only if that flight review
is conducted in an MU–2B airplane.
Satisfactory completion of a flight
review in the MU–2B airplane satisfies
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:43 Sep 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
the requirements of 14 CFR 61.56 for
other airplanes.
Operating Requirements. The safety
evaluation team and the FSB conducted
a pilot workload evaluation to
determine if safety would be enhanced
with the use of an autopilot during
single-pilot IFR operations. Many of the
recent accidents involved single pilot
IFR operations in high-density terminal
areas, with high workloads conducted at
night. Using techniques developed by
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, testing showed a
significant reduction in single pilot
workload and stress and improved
performance when an autopilot, a
standardized user-friendly pilot
checklist, and revised AFM procedures
were used in actual flight conditions.
The FAA proposes the following
additional operational requirements:
1. No person may conduct single-pilot
operations under IFR, or in IFR
conditions, or night VFR conditions in
the Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane
unless that airplane has a functioning
autopilot.
2. No person may operate a
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane
unless a copy of a specific revision level
of the AFM Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) listed in
the SFAR is carried on board the
airplane and accessible for each flight at
the pilot station. The proposed rule
would allow the operator to have
onboard the airplane, and accessible for
each flight at the pilot station, a FAAapproved revisions issued after the
effective date of the SFAR.
3. No person may operate a
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane
unless a MHI MU–2B checklist accepted
by the MU–2B Flight Standardization
Board, or other MU–2B series airplane
checklist that has been accepted by the
MU–2B Flight Standardization Board, is
carried on board the airplane and the
checklist is accessible during each flight
at the pilot station. This checklist must
be used by the flight crewmembers
when operating the airplane.
Alternatives Considered
The FAA considered the following
alternatives to the approach set forth in
the proposed SFAR:
1. Take no action. The FAA discarded
this alternative because it would not
enhance safety. Among other things, the
FAA proposes to enhance safety by
creating new pilot training, experience,
and operating requirements. Following
an increased accident and incident rate
in the MU–2B series airplane, the FAA
conducted a safety evaluation of the
MU–2B series airplane and found that
changes in the training and operating
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
requirements for that airplane are
needed.
2. Prohibit all operations of the MU–
2B series airplane within the National
Airspace System. The FAA has
determined there is no justification to
ground the airplane. The airplane meets
its original type certification basis as
found in three type certification
analyses (Special Certification Reviews
conducted in 1984, 1997, and the Safety
Evaluation of 2005 that found the
airplane complies with the applicable
certification rules).
3. Propose an SFAR and in addition,
require an aircraft type rating for the
MU–2B but remove requalification
training. The FAA rejected this
alternative because it would not meet
the FAA’s goal of ensuring that all MU–
2 pilots receive continued training in
the correct procedures for normal,
abnormal, and emergency operations.
4. Propose an SFAR, and in addition,
require a second pilot. Requiring a
second pilot for all MU–2B series
airplanes would be a more costly option
than the proposed SFAR training and
autopilot requirements (single-pilot IFR
operations would be required to have a
functioning autopilot). An operator has
the option of running a two-pilot crew
to enhance safety, but the FAA would
not require it.
Conclusion
To protect the flying public, the FAA
finds that many of the recommendations
of the safety evaluation and the FSB
report should be incorporated into an
SFAR that applies to all operations of
the Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane
conducted within the National Airspace
System of the United States.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposal contains the following
new information collection
requirements.
Title: Mitsubishi MR–2 Series
Airplane Special Training, Experience,
and Operating Requirements.
Summary: This SFAR would create
new pilot training, experience, and
operating requirements for the MU–2
airplane. Following an increased
accident and incident rate in the MU–
2B series airplane, the FAA conducted
a safety evaluation of the MU–2B series
airplane and found that changes in the
training and operating requirements for
that airplane are needed. These
proposed regulations would mandate
additional operating requirements and
improve pilot training for the MU–2B
series airplane.
Use of: This proposal would support
the information needs of the FAA to
determine that each pilot has received
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
the appropriate training in the MU–2
airplane.
Respondents: The respondents to this
proposed information requirement are
pilots who receive the training required
by this SFAR. The FAA estimates that
there are about 600 MU–2 pilots in the
United States.
Frequency: The FAA estimates each of
these 600 pilots would complete the
information required to verify training
with a logbook and final phase check
form endorsement by the flight
instructor. Thus, the annual frequency
of information requirements is 1200.
Annual Burden Estimate: Because
these endorsements are expected to take
only 5 minutes each, the total hour
burden is 100 hours. (5 minutes × 600
pilots × 2 = 100 hours). The total costs,
based on an instructor salary of $50.00
per hour is $8,606.
The agency is soliciting comments to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed
information requirement is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions
of the agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are required to respond, including
through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology.
As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), the FAA has submitted the
information requirements associated
with this proposal to the Office of
Management and Budget for its review.
Individuals and organizations may
submit comments on the information
collection requirement by November 27,
2006, and should direct them to the
address listed in the ADDRESSES section
of this document. Comments also
should be submitted to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, New Executive Building, Room
10202, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20053, Attention: Desk
Officer for FAA.
According to the 1995 amendments to
the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR
1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not
collect or sponsor the collection of
information, nor may it impose an
information collection requirement
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:43 Sep 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
number for this information collection
will be published in the Federal
Register, after the Office of Management
and Budget approves it.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations
under the Convention on International
Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to
comply with International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards
and Recommended Practices to the
maximum extent practicable. The FAA
has determined there are no ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed rules.
Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory
Flexibility Determination, International
Trade Impact Assessment, and
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
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 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic
impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements
Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies
from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, this Trade
Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis of
U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104–4) requires agencies to prepare a
written assessment of the costs, benefits,
and other effects of proposed or final
rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by
State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995).
This portion of the preamble
summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the
economic impacts of this proposed rule.
We suggest readers seeking greater
detail read the full initial regulatory
evaluation, we have placed in the
docket for this rulemaking (FAA–2006–
24981).
In conducting these analyses, FAA
has determined that this proposed rule:
(1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2)
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56911
is not an economically ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not
‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4)
would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities; (5) would not have a significant
effect on international trade; and (6)
would not impose an unfunded
mandate on state, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector by
exceeding the threshold identified
above. These analyses are summarized
below.
Total Costs and Benefits of this Rule
The estimated cost of this proposed
rule is about $40.6 million ($27.1
million in present value terms), and the
estimated benefit is about $85.4 million
($55.4 million in present value terms).
More detailed benefit and cost
information is provided below. The
FAA seeks comments on these
estimates.
Who Is Potentially Affected by this Rule
All pilots and operators of the
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane are
affected by this rulemaking. (This also
includes flight instructors, designated
pilot examiners, training center
evaluators, and check airmen.)
Assumptions:
• Discount rate—7%. Sensitivity
analysis was performed on 3% and 7%.
• Period of Analysis—2008 through
2017.
• Compliance with the final rule will
be required 180 days after the rule’s
effective date.
Benefits of this Rule
We estimate the proposed rule would
provide benefits of $85.4 million (or
$55.4 million in present value) from
2008 through 2017 in 2006 dollars. In
the absence of a new rule, it is likely
that future accidents will occur on MU–
2B airplanes in a manner similar to
what has happened in the past. A key
benefit of the proposed rule would be
the avoidance of these accidents.
Costs of this Rule
The FAA estimates the compliance
costs of this proposed rule to be about
$40.6 million (or $27.1 million in
present value). The table below shows a
breakdown of these total costs by
category.
Total Costs
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a
principle of regulatory issuance that
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with
the objectives of the rule and of
applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and
informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation. To achieve this principle,
agencies are required to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals
and to explain the rationale for their
actions to assure that such proposals are
given serious consideration.’’ The RFA
covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to
determine whether a rule will have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If
the agency determines that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis as described in the
RFA.
However, if an agency determines that
a proposed or final rule is not expected
to have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 RFA
provides that the head of the agency
may so certify and a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement
providing the factual basis for this
determination, and the reasoning should
be clear.
The FAA believes that this proposal
would result in a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The purpose of this analysis is
to provide the reasoning underlying the
FAA determination.
Under Section 603(b) of the RFA, the
analysis must address:
• Description of reasons the agency is
considering the action.
• Statement of the legal basis and
objectives for the proposed rule.
• Description of the record keeping
and other compliance requirements of
the proposed rule.
• All Federal rules that may
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule.
• Description and an estimated
number of small entities to which the
proposed rule will apply.
• Analysis of small firms’ ability to
afford the proposed rule.
• Analysis of disproportionate
impact.
• Analysis of competitive impact.
• Estimation of the potential for
business closures.
• Description of the alternatives
considered.
Under Title 49 of the United States
Code, the FAA Administrator is
required to consider the following
matters, among others, as being in the
public interest:
• Assigning, maintaining, and
enhancing safety and security as the
highest priorities in air commerce. [See
49 U.S.C. 40101(d)(1).]
• Promoting the safe flight of civil
aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations that are necessary for safety
[See 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5).]
• Additionally, it is the FAA
Administrator’s statutory duty to carry
out his or her responsibilities ‘‘in a way
that best tends to reduce or eliminate
the possibility or recurrence of
accidents in air transportation.’’ [See 49
U.S.C. 44701(c).]
Accordingly, this proposed rule
would amend Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations to address the
increasing number of accidents
involving the Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries America MU–2B series
airplane. The proposed rule would
require additional special training,
aeronautical experience, and operating
requirements for pilots that operate the
Mitsubishi MU–2B.
1 AFS–260; April 5, 2006 and ‘‘Review of
Aviation Accidents and Incidents involving the
Mitsubishi MU–2 Aircraft’’, October 2005;
NASDAC.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:43 Sep 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
A. Projected Reporting, Record
Keeping and Other Requirements.
We expect no more than minimal new
reporting and record-keeping
compliance requirements to result from
this proposed rule.
B. Overlapping, Duplicative, or
Conflicting Federal Rules.
We are unaware that the proposed
rule will overlap, duplicate or conflict
with existing Federal Rules.
C. Estimated Number of Small Firms
Potentially Impacted.
Using the size standards from the
Small Business Administration for Air
Transportation and Aircraft
Manufacturing, we have defined
companies as small entities if they have
fewer than 1,500 employees.
We considered the economic impact
on small-business part 91, 121, and 135
operators. The MU–2B’s operating in
part 91 are not for hire or flown for
profit. The part 91 operators primarily
operate the MU–2B either as a personaluse airplane or companies operate them
where aviation is not their primary
business. We found no part 121
operators of the MU–2B airplane.
We then obtained a list of part 91 and
135 MU–2B operators 1 from the Flight
Standards division of the FAA and from
the FAA Aviation Safety Information
Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) Center
(formerly known as the National
Aviation Safety Data Analysis Center
(NASDAC)).
Using information provided by the
World Aviation Directory and
ReferenceUSA, operators that are
subsidiary businesses of larger
businesses and businesses with more
than 1,500 employees were eliminated
from the list of small entities. For the
remaining businesses, we obtained
company revenue from those two
sources. In many cases the data was not
public.
We were unable to obtain
employment or annual revenue data for
the following MU–2B operators:
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
EP28SE06.291
56912
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
56913
centers we established that they would
continue providing their MU–2B
instructors with the latest training
available. We believe that most MU–2B
pilot training centers are small business
entities according to the Small Business
Administration for Air Transportation.
We also believe the rule would result in
offsetting training revenue for the MU–
2B pilot training centers.
D. Cost and Affordability for Small
Entities.
To assess the cost impact to small
business part 91 and 135 MU–2B
operators, we estimated the pilot
training costs and the number of pilots
per operator that needed training. The
training costs have a large and
immediate impact on the operator. As
noted in the cost section of this
evaluation, the following table
summarized the per pilot costs over the
10-year analysis period:
Because insurance companies
currently require all businesses to
provide training for their MU–2B pilots,
we determined the 14 U.S. small entity
companies identified above would incur
an additional $12,604 requalification
cost and annual recurrent training costs
of $1,937 per pilot. We assumed every
company would have two pilots for
15:43 Sep 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
EP28SE06.292
VerDate Aug<31>2005
EP28SE06.293
EP28SE06.296
MU–2B operators, with less than 1,500
employees, who operate 61 airplanes.
The FAA has determined that it is
essential that all flight training be
conducted per a single standardized
training program that reflects piloting
procedures as found in the Airplane
Flight Manual (AFM). In order to
accomplish this, the companies that
train pilots would themselves have to
train their current MU–2B instructors to
this new standard. Based on our
discussions with MU–2B pilot training
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
The methodology discussed above
resulted in the following list of 14 U.S.
56914
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
by the number of MU–2B airplanes the
small business operator currently has in
their fleet. We then measured the
economic impact on small entities by
dividing the estimated average annual
present value compliance cost for their
fleet by the small entity’s annual
revenue. For this analysis, if the cost of
compliance exceeds two percent of an
operator’s annual operating revenue, we
determine that as a significant economic
impact. As shown in the following table,
the pilot training cost is estimated to be
greater than two percent of annual
revenues for three small entity
operators.
Thus, the FAA determined that small
entities would be significantly affected
by the proposed rule.
E. Business Closure Analysis.
For MU–2B operators, the ratio of
average annual present-value costs to
annual revenue shows that three of the
14 U.S. small business air operator firms
analyzed would have ratios in excess of
two percent, and such a ratio may have
a significant financial impact when this
proposed rule becomes effective. The
remaining operators have an average
annual present-value cost to annual
revenue ratio less than two percent. To
fully assess whether this proposed rule
would force a small entity into
bankruptcy requires more financial
information than is readily available.
We performed a cost of compliance
analysis by dividing the economic
impact costs by the average value of the
fleet for each part 135 operator. We first
conducted an Internet search for MU–
2Bs on the market. From this search we
obtained the selling price for 19 MU–
2Bs currently on the market. Summing
the 19 MU–2B’s selling price, then
dividing by 19, we computed the
average selling price of $510,250. In
order to validate this average cost, we
then computed a weighted average price
by age and hours flown. These weighted
average prices were both within 2.5% of
the average selling price. The following
table shows the results of the average
selling price and the weighted average
price:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:43 Sep 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
EP28SE06.295
cost of $2,203 (discounted at seven
percent).
EP28SE06.294
present value of the pilot training cost
for an MU–2B pilot would be about
$22,032, or an annual average training
We estimated each operator’s total
compliance cost by multiplying the
average annual discounted pilot training
cost by the number of MU–2B pilots
employed. We estimate the number of
pilots by assuming each firm employs
two pilots per MU–2B airplane. Next,
we took this product and multiplied it
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
each MU–2B they operate. We are also
assuming that the final rule will become
effective in two years. On that basis, the
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
56915
small entities is estimated to be 0.86
percent of the average selling price of
the small entities fleet.
supportive justification, to determine
the degree of hardship the proposed rule
will have on these businesses.
F. Competitive Analysis.
In order to determine the competitive
impact of the rule on small entities, we
looked at the type of market for each of
the affected small entity’s business. The
following table details these results.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:43 Sep 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
EP28SE06.297
EP28SE06.298
product of the average selling price by
the number of MU–2Bs the small-entity
operates. As shown in the following
table, the pilot training costs of the
We do not believe that these
additional compliance costs, relative to
the value of the asset, would cause any
of the impacted firms to go into
bankruptcy, but seek comment, with
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
We calculated the economic impact
costs by dividing the product of the
average annual present value cost per
pilot by the number of pilots by the
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Since markets of the 14 small entities
cover 12 distinctly different areas, we
believe the diversity of the companies’
business lines would not create a
competitive disadvantage. From the
Business Closure Analysis above, we do
not believe this proposal will cause any
of the impacted small entity firms who
operate MU–2B’s to go into bankruptcy.
We invite public comment on the
potential competitive impact of the
proposed rule.
G. Disproportionality Analysis.
Given the sparse firm and market data
publicly available, we cannot discern
the small firm competitive impact
relative to large firms from this
proposed rule.
We invite public comment on the
disproportional potential impact of the
proposed rule on small entities versus
large entities. Affected small entities are
invited to discuss:
(a) The size of their business and how
the proposed regulations would result
in a significant economic burden upon
them as compared to larger
organizations in the same business
community; and
(b) How the proposed regulations
could be modified to take into account
small entities’ differing needs or
capabilities versus large entities.
Comments received on regulatory
flexibility issues are addressed in the
statement of considerations for the final
rule.
H. Analysis of Alternatives.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Alternative One
The ‘‘baseline,’’ ‘‘do nothing,’’ or
status quo alternative has no
compliance costs but would not
accomplish the intent of Congress’
recommendation. The FAA rejected this
‘‘do nothing’’ alternative because the
proposed rule would enhance safety and
prevent more MU–2B related accidents.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:13 Sep 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
Alternative Two
This alternative would prohibit all
operations of the MU–2B series airplane
within the National Airspace System.
The FAA has determined that there is
little justification to ground the
airplane. The airplane meets its original
type certification basis as found in three
type certification analyses (Special
Certification Reviews conducted in
1984, 1997, and the Safety Evaluation of
2005 that found that the airplane
complies with the applicable
certification regulations).
Alternative Three
This alternative would keep the
proposed SFAR, except that it would
require an aircraft type rating for the
MU–2B, but remove requalification
training. This alternative would not
meet the FAA’s goal of ensuring that all
MU–2B pilots receive training in the
correct procedures for abnormal and
emergency operations.
Alternative Four
This alternative would keep the
proposed SFAR, and in addition,
require a second pilot. Requiring a
second pilot for all MU–2B airplanes
would be a substantially more costly
option than the proposed SFAR training
and autopilot requirements (single-pilot
IFR operations would be required to
have a functioning autopilot). In
addition, the FAA has determined that
use of an autopilot provides a level of
safety comparable to a two-pilot crew
and therefore does not propose
requiring a second crew member. The
FAA invites comment on whether there
are advantages to requiring two crew
members that exceed the safety benefits
of requiring an autopilot. An operator
has the option of running a two-pilot
crew to enhance safety, but the FAA
would not require it.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
In summary, the FAA believes that
this proposal would have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. We were able to obtain
employment and annual revenue data
for 14 small entities that operated MU–
2B airplanes. The pilot training cost is
estimated to be greater than two percent
of annual revenues for three of these
small entities. Therefore, the FAA
certifies that this rule would have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979
(Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any
standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
United States. Legitimate domestic
objectives, such as safety, are not
considered unnecessary obstacles. The
statute also requires consideration of
international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for
U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed
the potential effect of this proposed rule
and determined that it responds to a
domestic safety objective and is not
considered an unnecessary barrier to
trade.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4)
requires each Federal agency to prepare
a written statement assessing the effects
of any Federal mandate in a proposed or
final agency rule that may result in an
expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation with the
base year 1995) in any one year by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector; such
a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant
regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
EP28SE06.299
56916
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
uses an inflation-adjusted value of
$128.1 million in lieu of $100 million.
This proposed rule does not contain
such a mandate. The requirements of
Title II do not apply.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 61
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Safety
measures.
The FAA has analyzed this proposed
rule under the principles and criteria of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We
determined that this action would not
have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the
national Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, and therefore
would not have federalism implications.
14 CFR Part 91
Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation
safety, Freight, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Regulations Affecting Intrastate
Aviation in Alaska
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend chapter I of title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
Section 1205 of the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the Administrator, when
changing regulations in title 14 of the
CFR in manner affecting intrastate
aviation in Alaska, to consider the
extent to which Alaska is not served by
transportation modes other than
aviation, and to establish such
regulatory distinctions as he or she
considers appropriate. The FAA
therefore specifically requests
comments on whether there is
justification for applying the proposed
rule differently in intrastate operations
in Alaska.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA
actions that are categorically excluded
from preparation of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact
statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act in the
absence of extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has determined this proposed
rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in
paragraph 312f and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA has analyzed this NPRM
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We
have determined that it is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ under the
executive order because it is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
Executive Order 12866, and it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:43 Sep 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
14 CFR Part 135
Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS,
FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
INSTRUCTORS
1. The authority citation for part 61
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–
44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 45102–45103,
45301–45302.
2. Add Special Federal Aviation
Regulation (SFAR) No. XX as follows:
Special Federal Aviation Regulations.
*
*
*
*
*
SFAR No. XX—Mitsubishi MU–2B
Series Airplane Special Training,
Experience, and Operating
Requirements
Note: For the text of SFAR No. XX, see part
91 of this chapter.
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND
FLIGHT RULES
3. The authority citation for part 91
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103,
40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44709,
44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722,
46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506–46507,
47122, 47508, 47528–47531, articles 12 and
29 of the Convention on International Civil
Aviation (61 stat. 1180).
4. Add SFAR No. XX to read as
follows:
Special Federal Aviation Regulation
(SFAR) No. XX—Mitsubishi MU–2B
Series Special Training, Experience,
and Operating Requirements
1. Applicability. This Special Federal
Aviation Regulation (SFAR) applies to
all persons who operate the MU–2B
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56917
airplane including those who
manipulate the controls, or act as pilotin-command. The proposed SFAR also
applies to those persons who provide
pilot training for the Mitsubishi MU–2B
series airplane. The requirements in this
SFAR are in addition to the
requirements of 14 CFR parts 61, 91,
and 135.
2. Compliance. After March 27, 2007,
no person may manipulate the controls,
act as pilot-in-command, or provide
pilot training for the Mitsubishi MU–2B
series airplane unless that person meets
the requirements of sections 3, 4, 5, 6,
and 7, as applicable of this SFAR.
3. Required Pilot Training.
(a) No person may manipulate the
controls or act as pilot-in-command of a
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane for
the purpose of flight unless the
applicable requirements for ground and
flight training on initial/transition,
requalification, recurrent, or differences
have been completed, as specified in
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU–2B
Training Program, Part Number YET
05301, dated July 27, 2006, Revision 1
or a FAA-approved revision issued after
the effective date of this SFAR. On
completion of the training, that person’s
logbook must be endorsed by a
certificated flight instructor meeting the
qualifications of section 5 of this SFAR.
(b) No person may manipulate the
controls or act as pilot-in-command of a
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane for
the purpose of flight unless that person
completes annual recurrent pilot
training on the Special Emphasis Items,
pages 4 and 5, and all items listed in the
Training Course Final Phase Check,
Appendix A, as specified in Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries MU–2B Training
Program, Part Number YET 05301, dated
July 27, 2006, Revision 1 or a FAAapproved revision issued after the
effective date of this SFAR. That person
must satisfactorily complete the annual
training and that person’s logbook must
be endorsed by a certificated flight
instructor meeting the qualifications of
section 5 of this SFAR. Satisfactory
completion of the competency check
required by 14 CFR 135.293 of that
chapter within the preceding 12
calendar months may not be substituted
for the Mitsubishi MU–2B series
airplane annual recurrent flight training
of this paragraph.
4. Aeronautical Experience. No
person may act as pilot-in-command of
a Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane for
the purpose of flight unless that person
holds an airplane category and multiengine land class rating, and has logged
a minimum of 100 flight hours of pilotin-command time in multi-engine
airplanes.
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
56918
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
5. Instruction, Checking and
Evaluation.
(a) Flight Instructor (Airplane). No
flight instructor may provide instruction
or conduct a flight review in a
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane
unless that instructor meets the
requirements of this section.
(i) Each flight instructor who provides
flight training in the Mitsubishi MU–2B
series airplane must meet the pilot
training requirements of paragraphs (a)
and (b) of section 3 of this SFAR before
giving flight instruction in the
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane.
(ii) Each flight instructor who
provides flight training in the
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must
meet the currency requirements of
paragraphs (a) and (c) of section 6 of this
SFAR before giving flight instruction in
the Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane.
(iii) Each flight instructor who
provides flight training in the
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must
have—
(A) A minimum total pilot time of
2,000 pilot-in-command hours,
(B) 800 pilot-in-command hours in
multiengine airplanes, and
(C) 300 pilot-in-command hours in
the Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane,
50 of which must have been within the
last 12 months.
(b) Flight Instructor (Simulator/ Flight
Training Device). No flight instructor
may provide instruction for the
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane
unless that instructor meets the
requirements of this section.
(i) Each flight instructor who provides
flight training for the Mitsubishi MU–2B
series airplane must meet the pilot
training and documentation
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of
section 3 of this SFAR before giving
flight instruction for the Mitsubishi
MU–2B series airplane.
(ii) Each flight instructor who
provides flight training for the
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must
meet the currency requirements of
paragraph (c) of section 6 of this SFAR
before giving flight instruction for the
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane.
(iii) Each flight instructor who
provides flight training for the
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must
have—
(A) A minimum total pilot time of
2000 pilot-in-command hours,
(B) 800 pilot-in-command hours in
multiengine airplanes, and
(C) Within the last 12 months, either
50 hours of Mitsubishi MU–2B series
airplane pilot-in-command experience
or 50 hours providing simulator or flight
training device instruction for the
Mitsubishi MU–2B.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:43 Sep 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
(c) Checking and Evaluation. No
person may provide checking or
evaluation for the Mitsubishi MU–2B
series airplane unless that person meets
the requirements of this paragraph.
(i) For the purpose of checking,
designated pilot examiners, training
center evaluators, and check airmen
must have completed the appropriate
training in the Mitsubishi MU–2B series
airplane in accordance with paragraph
(a) and (b), section 3 of this SFAR.
(ii) For checking conducted in the
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane, each
designated pilot examiner and check
airman must have 100 hours pilot-incommand flight time in the Mitsubishi
MU–2B series airplane and maintain
currency in accordance with section 6 of
this SFAR.
(d) Mandatory Training Procedures.
(i) All pilot training conducted for the
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must
be completed in accordance with the
procedures and techniques as described
in the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU–
2B Training Program, Part Number YET
05301, dated July 27, 2006, Revision 1
or a FAA-approved revision issued after
the effective date of this SFAR.
(ii) All flight training conducted for
the Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane
must be completed using a Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries MU–2B checklist
accepted by the MU–2B Flight
Standardization Board, or other MU–2B
series airplane checklist that has been
accepted by the MU–2B Flight
Standardization Board, and described in
paragraph (c), section 7 of this SFAR.
6. Currency Requirements and Flight
Review.
(a) The landing currency requirements
of § 61.57 of this chapter must be
maintained in the Mitsubishi MU–2B
series airplane. Landings in other
multiengine airplanes do not meet the
landing currency requirements for the
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane.
Landings in either short- or long-body
Mitsubishi MU–2B model airplane may
be credited toward landing currency in
both MU–2B model groups.
(b) Instrument experience obtained in
other category and class of aircraft may
be used to satisfy the instrument
currency requirements of § 61.57 of this
chapter for the Mitsubishi MU–2B series
airplane.
(c) Satisfactory completion of a flight
review to satisfy the requirements of
§ 61.56 of this chapter is valid for
operation of a Mitsubishi MU–2B series
airplane only if that flight review is
conducted in a Mitsubishi MU–2B
series airplane. The flight review for
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplanes must
include the Special Emphasis Items,
pages 4 and 5, and all items listed in
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Training Course Final Phase Check,
Appendix A, of Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries MU–2B Training Program,
Part Number YET 05301, dated July 27,
2006, Revision 1 or a FAA-approved
revision issued after the effective date of
this SFAR.
7. Operating Requirements.
(a) No person may operate a
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane with
a single pilot under instrument flight
rules (IFR), in IFR conditions, or night
visual flight rule (VFR) conditions,
unless that airplane has a functioning
autopilot.
(b) No person may operate a
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane
unless a copy of the appropriate
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Airplane
Flight Manual, as described in Table 1
of this SFAR, or a FAA-approved
revision issued after the effective date of
this SFAR, is carried on board the
airplane and is accessible during each
flight at the pilot station of the airplane.
(c) No person may operate a
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane
unless a copy of a Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries MU–2B checklist accepted by
the MU–2B Flight Standardization
Board, or other MU–2B series airplane
checklist that has been accepted by the
MU–2B Flight Standardization Board, is
carried on board the airplane and used
by the flight crewmembers when
operating the airplane.
(d) No person may operate a
Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane
contrary to the procedures and
techniques within Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries MU–2B Training Program,
Part number YET 05301, dated July 27,
2006, Revision 1 or a FAA-approved
revision issued after the effective date of
this SFAR.
8. Incorporation by Reference. The
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU–2B
Training Program, Part number YET
05301, dated July 27, 2006, Revision 1,
and the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
Airplane Flight Manuals, as described
in Table 1 of this SFAR are incorporated
by reference. This incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director
of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. Section 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. The Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries MU–2B Training Program
and Airplane Flight Manuals are
distributed by Turbine Aircraft Services,
Inc. Copies may be obtained from
Turbine Aircraft Services Inc., 4550
Jimmy Doolittle Drive, Addison, Texas
75001, USA. Copies may be inspected at
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Management Facility, Room PL–
401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590–0001 or at the
Office of the Federal Register, 800 North
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
56919
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
9. Expiration. This SFAR will remain
in effect until further notice.
TABLE 1.—DOCUMENT NUMBER AND REVISION LEVEL FOR MU–2B SERIES AIRPLANE—AIRPLANE FLIGHT MANUAL
Applicable AFM revision level
Model
Type certificate
Document No.
MU–2B–60 .........................................................................................
MU–2B–40 .........................................................................................
MU–2B–36A ......................................................................................
MU–2B–36 .........................................................................................
MU–2B–35 .........................................................................................
MU–2B–30 .........................................................................................
MU–2B–26A ......................................................................................
MU–2B–26 .........................................................................................
MU–2B–26 .........................................................................................
MU–2B–25 .........................................................................................
MU–2B–25 .........................................................................................
MU–2B–20 .........................................................................................
MU–2B–15 .........................................................................................
MU–2B–10 .........................................................................................
MU–2B ...............................................................................................
PART 135—OPERATING
REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTERS AND
ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND
RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON
BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT.
5. The authority citation for part 135
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 44113,
44701’44702, 44705, 44709, 44711–44713,
44715–44717, 44722.
6. Add Special Federal Aviation
Regulation (SFAR) No. XX as follows:
Special Federal Aviation Regulations
*
*
*
*
*
SFAR No. XX—Mitsubishi MU–2B
Series Airplane Special Training,
Experience, and Operating
Requirements
Note: For the text of SFAR No. XX, see part
91 of this chapter.
Issued in Washington, DC, on September
21, 2006.
James J. Ballough,
Director, Flight Standards Service, AFS–1.
[FR Doc. 06–8310 Filed 9–22–06; 4:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS
ADMINISTRATION
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
36 CFR Part 1280
[NARA–06–0005]
RIN 3095–AB55
Use of NARA Facilities
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Sep 27, 2006
Jkt 208001
A10SW .............
A10SW .............
A10SW .............
A2PC ................
A2PC ................
A2PC ................
A10SW .............
A2PC ................
A10SW .............
A10SW .............
A2PC ................
A2PC ................
A2PC ................
A2PC ................
A2PC ................
MR–0273–1 ......
MR–0271–1 ......
MR–0196–1 ......
YET74122A ......
YET70186A ......
YET69013A ......
MR–0194–1 ......
YET74129A ......
MR–0160–1 ......
MR–0156–1 ......
YET71367A ......
YET68034A ......
YET68038A ......
YET86400 ........
YET67026A ......
SUMMARY: The proposed rule would
revise NARA’s policy on the inspection
of personal property in the possession of
a contractor, employee, student intern,
visitor, volunteer or other person on
NARA properties. Because NARA’s
current regulations apply specifically
only to visitors on NARA property, the
revised rule clarifies that all persons
arriving on, working at, visiting, or
departing from NARA property are
subject to the inspection of their
personal property. The proposed rule
would also amend NARA’s current
regulations to include additional
properties under NARA control. This
rule will affect members of the public,
members of Federal agencies, NARA
employees, NARA contract-employees
and NARA volunteers.
Comments are due by November
27, 2006.
DATES:
NARA invites interested
persons to submit comments on this
proposed rule. Please include ‘‘Attn:
RIN 3095–AB55’’ and your name and
mailing address in your comments.
Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: Submit comments by facsimile
transmission to 301–837–0319.
• Mail: Send comments to
Regulations Comments Desk (NPOL),
Room 4100, Policy and Planning Staff,
National Archives and Records
Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road,
College Park, MD 20740–6001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver
comments to 8601 Adelphi Road,
College Park, MD.
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Revision No.
14
12
14
12
13
13
12
12
10
10
12
12
12
12
12
Date issued
July 11, 2005.
July 11, 2005.
July 11, 2005.
August 9, 2004.
August 9, 2004.
August 9, 2004.
July 11, 2005.
August 9, 2004.
July 11, 2005.
July 11, 2005.
August 9, 2004.
August 9, 2004.
August 9, 2004.
August 9, 2004.
August 9, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Landou at 301–837–1899 or fax
number 301–837–0293.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Archivist prescribes rules that
ensure the safety and preservation of the
holdings subject to NARA’s authority.
NARA has a staff of over 3,000 people
nationwide and receives over three
million visitors to its facilities. With a
combined volume of 27 million cubic
feet of traditional holdings and 500,000
artifacts, the challenges of safeguarding
the holdings are both difficult and
complex.
Incidents of theft by researchers and
unauthorized removal of documents by
former NARA staff have resulted in
heightened security precautions in
NARA facilities. Additional safeguards
implemented during the past year
include background checks for
volunteers working with original
records and artifacts, closed circuit
video cameras in all regional archives
and Presidential library research rooms,
and the opening of a classified research
room at the National Archives Building
in Washington, DC. NARA regulations
concerning conduct of NARA
contractors, employees, student interns,
visitors and volunteers are being revised
to strengthen the current policies.
The following section of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION discusses
the regulations that we are proposing be
revised.
This proposed rule clarifies NARA’s
policy regarding inspection of personal
property in the possession of a
contractor, employee, student intern,
visitor, volunteer or other person on
E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM
28SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 188 (Thursday, September 28, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56905-56919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8310]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 61, 91, 135
[Docket No. FAA-2006-24981; Notice No. 06-14]
RIN 2120-AI82
Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. XX--Mitsubishi MU-2B
Series Airplane Special Training, Experience, and Operating
Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing a Special Federal Aviation Regulation
(SFAR) applicable to the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane that would
create new pilot training, experience, and operating requirements.
Following an increased accident and incident rate in the MU-2B series
airplane, the FAA conducted a safety evaluation of the MU-2B series
airplane and found that changes in the training and operating
requirements for that airplane are needed. These proposed regulations
would mandate additional operating requirements and improve pilot
training for the MU-2B series airplane.
DATES: Send your comments on or before October 30, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments to Docket Number FAA-2006-24981 using
any of the following methods:
Department of Transportation (DOT) Docket Web site: Go to
https://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov
[[Page 56906]]
and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For more information on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
https://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. For
more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
https://dms.dot.gov, at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of
the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete Devaris, Federal Aviation
Administration, General Aviation and Commercial Division AFS-820, Room
835, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202)
493-4710; facsimile (202) 267-5094; or e-mail: Peter.Devaris@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written
comments.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public
inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to
review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the
Internet at the Web address in the ADDRESSES section.
Privacy Act: Using the search function of our docket Web site,
anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets,
including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing
the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov.
Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we
receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider
comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments
we receive.
If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this
proposal, include with your comments a preaddressed, stamped postcard
on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the
postcard and mail it to you.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information
Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send
the information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or
CD-ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information
filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a
separate file to which the public does not have access, and place a
note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to
examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a
request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket
Management System (DMS) Web page (https://dms.dot.gov/search);
(2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number
of this rulemaking.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) authority to issue
rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States
Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA
Administrator to issue, rescind, and revise the rules. This rulemaking
is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, Part A, Air Commerce and Safety, Subpart III, Safety, Section
44701, General Requirements. Under that section, the FAA is charged
with prescribing regulations setting the minimum standards for
practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it will set the minimum level of safety to operate the Mitsubishi MU-2B
series airplane.
Background
History
In the 1950s, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) developed the MU-2B
series airplane equipped with state-of-the-art turboprop engines. The
MU-2B design provided a high-wing loading in cruise configuration, the
capability of carrying nine passengers in a pressurized cabin, a highly
efficient double-slotted Fowler flap system designed to run the full
span of the wing to achieve short field takeoff and landing capability,
and a spoiler system for roll control. MHI produced 764 MU-2B series
airplanes with 397 airplanes on the U.S. registry as of August 2005.
The FAA type certificated the MU-2B airplane in November 1965; the
type certification basis was Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 10, which
required compliance with a combination of CAR 3 standards and special
conditions. CAR 3 standards did not require a cockpit checklist for the
MU-2B, nor was the airplane required to demonstrate the ability to
complete the takeoff climb with one engine inoperable.
[[Page 56907]]
At first, the MU-2B was popular with corporate and business users.
MHI eventually produced 13 different models with two basic categories
of fuselage length: a short-body and a long-body design. Over the
years, corporate and business aviation has switched to other more
modern jet airplanes. As a result, the MU-2B is now used mainly in air
taxi operations (especially cargo hauling) and as a personal-use
airplane. Of the 397 of these airplanes on the U.S. registry, the
majority are operated under the requirements of 14 CFR part 91 as
personal-use airplanes. As of April 2006, 64 MU-2B's were being flown
by 18 different part 135 operators within the United States.
This shift to air-taxi and personal-flight operations increased the
exposure of the MU-2B to certain known hazards: more frequent night
flights; a significantly higher number of hours flown than in previous
operations; an increase in single-pilot operations; and operation by
pilots who may not be getting the level and frequency of training that
corporate pilots typically receive. This shift in use may have resulted
in an increase in the accident rate. Over a 2-year period from 2004-
2005, the MU-2B series airplane has been involved in 12 accidents with
a total of 14 fatalities.
Statement of the Problem
In response to the increasing number of accidents and incidents
involving the MHI MU-2B series airplane, the FAA began a safety
evaluation of the MU-2B in July 2005. The FAA, with the assistance of
pilots and maintenance personnel both inside and outside the FAA,
evaluated the design, operations, training, and maintenance of the MU-
2B series airplane to determine if this airplane continues to meet the
required certificated minimum level of safety and to determine what
steps may be necessary to ensure their continued safe operation.
Performing the safety evaluation provided an in-depth review and
analysis of MU-2B series airplane accidents, incidents, safety data,
pilot training requirements, and engine reliability. The safety
evaluation employed new analysis tools that provided a more detailed
root cause analysis of the service history problems of the MU-2B than
was previously possible.
During the safety evaluation, the FAA convened a FAA Flight
Standardization Board (FSB) to evaluate proposed training, checking,
and currency requirements for pilots operating the MU-2B series
airplane. The FSB reviewed a proposed MHI training program, and MHI
developed a standardized cockpit checklist. The FSB conducted a human
factors evaluation to determine if average pilots, without exceptional
skills, can perform various in-flight procedures during high workloads
and if automation can reduce pilot workloads and enhance safety. A copy
of the Mitsubishi Model MU-2B Flight Standardization Board Report dated
January 23, 2006, has been placed in the Rules Docket (FAA-2006-24981).
Some of the proposed requirements in this SFAR are derived from the FSB
report.
During the safety evaluation process, more than 20 MU-2B pilot
training programs were evaluated, including 3 offered by commercial
training providers. There was little standardization in how these
programs addressed normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures. Only a
few emphasized the different handling characteristics of the MU-2B
airplane or specialized operational techniques. The FAA determined that
it is essential that all flight training be conducted with a single
standardized training program that reflects piloting procedures as
found in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). A standardized flight
training program that emphasizes proper operational technique is
critical to the safe operation of the MU-2B.
The results of FAA's safety evaluation concluded that the MU-2B
series airplane is a complex airplane requiring operational techniques
not typically used in other light turboprop airplanes. Operationally,
it is more similar to turbo-jet airplanes that require a type rating. A
type rating is not required for a pilot-in-command (PIC) to operate the
MU-2B series airplane because it is not turbo-jet powered and is not
considered a large aircraft [see 14 CFR 61.31(a)]. The FAA could
require a type rating by amending the type certification of the MU-2B.
However, a type rating would not require annual or bi-annual recurrent
training. The FAA determined that a type rating alone would not achieve
the desired level of safety. Mandating training requirements that go
beyond the requirements of a type rating was determined to be necessary
to ensure the safe operation of this airplane.
The Safety Evaluation Team and the FSB concluded that safe
operation of the airplane requires initial and annual recurrent pilot
training. This training must be standardized to be effective.
MHI developed a standardized flight training program. The FAA
evaluated a draft of this training program during the FSB process. The
FSB determined that use of the flight training program provided a
significant increase in safety. MHI further refined the training
program and submitted it to the FAA for approval. The FAA granted
initial approval to the MHI MU-2B Training Program (Part Number YET
05301) in July 2006. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of America (MHIA)
distributed Revision 1 of the training program for use by the operators
of the MU-2B in August of 2006. Training also commenced in August,
2006. The FAA-approved MHI MU-2B Training Program (Part Number YET
05301) is considered to be compliant with the training requirements of
this proposed SFAR and most of the recommendations of the FSB report.
Credit will be given for training conducted prior to the effective date
of the proposed SFAR only if that training is conducted in accordance
with the MHI MU-2B Training Program (Part Number YET 05301). A copy of
this training program has been placed in the DOT docket for this
rulemaking. The FAA will seek approval from the Director of the Federal
Register to incorporate by reference the MHI MU-2B training program
(Part Number YET 0530) in the SFAR.
This proposal allows certain training to be conducted in a flight
training device (FTD) or the MU-2B airplane. Any FTD training, in order
to meet the requirements of this SFAR, must be conducted in a Level 5
or higher FTD that has been specifically approved by the FAA as an MU-
2B training device. The FTD must be representative of an MU-2B cockpit
and have flight characteristics similar to a MU-2B airplane.
The FAA reviewed the certification requirements for the MU-2B and
found that it met the applicable certification basis. However, the
airplane was type certificated before the requirement for a
standardized cockpit checklist was in effect. Therefore, operators of
the MU-2B have developed and use their own non-standard, non-FAA
approved checklists. This lack of standardization generates a variety
of operational procedures. During the safety evaluation the FAA
received requests for a standardized checklist, developed by the
manufacturer, found acceptable to the FAA, and reflective of the best
operational procedures for this model airplane. The FAA's test pilots
evaluated a standardized checklist developed by MHI, and after
modification by the manufacturer, found it to be a significant safety
improvement. A standardized cockpit checklist that emphasizes proper
operational procedures is critical to the safe operation of the MU-2B
series airplane.
[[Page 56908]]
MHI has developed a standardized checklist for the Mitsubishi MU-
2B-60 model. This checklist has been accepted by the FAA's MU-2B Flight
Standardization Board. MHI is in the process of developing checklists
for the remaining models. All checklists are expected to be completed
by December 31, 2006. A copy of the accepted Mitsubishi MU-2B-60
checklist has been placed in the Rules Docket. This checklist addresses
the most complex model of the MU-2B airplane. The other checklists are
expected to be similar in content where applicable. These checklists
will be consistent with known configurations of the airplane as
originally delivered or later modified and incorporated by MHI into the
AFM. Copies of the other checklists will be posted to the docket as
they become available.
The FAA is proposing that all operators have onboard the airplane,
accessible for each flight at the pilot station, a MHI MU-2B series
airplane checklist accepted by the MU-2B Flight Standardization Board
or other MU-2B series airplane checklist that has been accepted by the
MU-2B Flight Standardization Board. This checklist must be used by the
flight crewmembers when operating the airplane.
Federal aviation regulations allow operators to operate their
aircraft in accordance with an approved AFM. Some aircraft are
operating today with the original AFM. These same AFMs have been
revised numerous times; however, some operators may not have revised
their AFMs, nor elected to incorporate the later revisions from the
manufacturer. Many of these revisions were prepared to enhance safe
operation of the MU-2B and were a direct result of the Special
Certification Reviews and icing studies conducted by the FAA in 1984
and 1997. The FAA is proposing that all operators have onboard the
airplane, and accessible during each flight at the pilot station, a
specific revision level of the AFM (see Table 1 in the SFAR). The
proposed rule would allow the operator to have onboard the airplane,
and accessible for each flight at the pilot station, FAA-approved
revisions issued after the effective date of the SFAR. Copies of the
AFMs have been placed in the DOT docket for review by the public. The
FAA will seek approval from the Director of the Federal Register to
incorporate by reference the MHI MU-2B Airplane Flight Manuals in the
SFAR.
A pilot workload evaluation was conducted to determine if safety
would be enhanced with the use of an autopilot during single-pilot
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations. Many of the recent accidents
involved single pilot night-time IFR operations in high-density
terminal areas with high pilot workloads. Using techniques developed by
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, testing showed a
significant reduction in single pilot workload and stress and improved
performance when an autopilot was used in actual flight conditions. In
addition, the FAA has determined that use of an autopilot provides a
level of safety comparable to a two-pilot crew and therefore does not
propose requiring a second crew member. The FAA invites comment on
whether there are advantages to requiring two crew members that exceed
the safety benefits of requiring an autopilot.
The safety evaluation also looked at maintenance requirements for
the MU-2B series airplane and recommended that all maintenance
performed on the MU-2B must be done using current maintenance manuals
and the latest instructions for continued airworthiness. Existing
rules, 14 CFR 43.13 and 65.81, already address maintenance requirements
and the need to use the current and correct manuals. Including this
recommendation in the SFAR would result in redundant regulations.
Therefore, the FAA is not proposing any new maintenance requirements in
this SFAR. However, in November of 2005, the FAA issued Flight
Standards Information Bulletin for Airworthiness 05-11 (FSAW), which
focused on maintenance procedures. The FSAW required that all FAA
maintenance inspectors with oversight of MU-2B operators inspect a
variety of maintenance items and procedures and report their findings.
This FSAW is still active but the actions required by it are near
completion. The FAA has noted a high level of compliance with existing
rules and no unsafe conditions have been identified. The FAA continues
to monitor the airworthiness of the MU-2B series airplane and will take
appropriate action if an unsafe condition is identified.
The MU-2B Series Airplane Safety Evaluation Report of December 2005
recommended that the FAA begin a rulemaking action to address several
of the recommendations within the report. Based on the safety
evaluation recommendations, the FAA proposes an SFAR addressing the
following items:
--Specific pilot training and testing of pilot skills.
--A standardized, user-friendly pilot checklist.
--A requirement to update the AFM.
A copy of the safety evaluation report has been placed in the Rules
Docket (FAA-2006-24981) for this rulemaking.
The Proposed Regulation
Applicability. The proposed SFAR would apply to all persons who
operate the MU-2B airplane including those who manipulate the controls,
or act as pilot-in-command (PIC). The proposed SFAR also applies to
those persons who provide pilot training for the Mitsubishi MU-2B
series airplane. The requirements proposed in this SFAR would be in
addition to the requirements in 14 CFR parts 61, 91, and 135.
Compliance. The FAA proposes that 180 days after the effective date
of the final rule, no person may act as PIC, manipulate the controls,
or provide pilot training on a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane unless
that person meets the applicable requirements of the proposed SFAR. The
FAA believes that 180 days should give the affected operators of this
airplane time to receive the necessary training and meet the
requirements of the SFAR. While the FAA realizes that 180 days is a
short period of time, the agency must balance the compliance timeframe
with the need to act quickly to prevent further accidents.
Required Pilot Training. The FAA proposes that no person may
manipulate the controls or act as PIC of a Mitsubishi MU-2B series
airplane for flight unless the applicable requirements for ground and
flight training on initial/transition, requalification, recurrent, or
differences pilot training specified in Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU-
2B Training Program (Part Number YET 05301, dated July 27, 2006,
Revision 1, or a FAA-approved revision issued after the effective date
of this SFAR) are completed and that person's logbook has been endorsed
by a certificated flight instructor meeting the qualifications for MU-
2B flight instructors listed in the SFAR.
As used in the proposed SFAR, initial/transition training would
apply to any pilot without documented MU-2B pilot operating experience
in the last 2 years. Requalification training would apply to any pilot
who has documented MU-2B operating experience in the last 2 years, but
does not have documented training to an FAA-approved training program
for the MU-2B meeting the eligibility requirements of this SFAR for
recurrent training. Recurrent training would apply to any pilot who has
completed and has documented training to an FAA-approved training
program for the MU-2B that meets the
[[Page 56909]]
requirements of this SFAR in the preceding 12 months and is MU-2B
current in accordance with this SFAR. Differences training would apply
to any pilot who operates more than one MU-2B model. Differences
training is in addition to the requirements for initial/transition,
requalification, or recurrent training. If for example, a person
operates two models of the MU-2B, that person would be required to
receive differences training between these models one time only. If a
person intended to operate three or more models of the MU-2B,
additional one-time difference training would be required.
The FAA proposes that no person may manipulate the controls or act
as PIC of a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane for the purpose of flight
unless that person completes annual recurrent pilot training in the
Special Emphasis Items, pages 4 and 5, and all items listed in Training
Course Final Phase Check, Appendix A, as specified in Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries MU-2B Training Program (Part Number YET 05301, dated July
27, 2006, Revision 1, or a FAA-approved revision issued after the
effective date of this SFAR). This includes training in the following
areas of operation: takeoff and landing, steep turns and stalls,
emergency operations (various scenarios with one engine not providing
thrust), both precision approach and non-precision approach procedures
for instrument rated pilots, and areas of special emphasis (stall
awareness, minimum controllable airspeed awareness, icing conditions,
and airspeed management). The pilot must satisfactorily complete the
training and that pilot's logbook must be endorsed by a certificated
flight instructor meeting the qualifications for flight instructors
listed in the proposed SFAR.
The existing rule, 14 CFR 135.351(c), currently allows a 14 CFR
135.293 check be substituted for recurrent flight training. Because of
the importance of recurrent training, the exception to recurrent
training as described in 14 CFR 135.351(c) would not be allowed for the
MU-2B airplane. Accordingly, the FAA has calculated the full estimated
cost associated with recurrent training in the initial regulatory
evaluation for the proposed rule. The FAA notes that some of the
recurrent training requirements could be incorporated into portions of
the existing 135.293 check. Thus, the cost of recurrent training would
be offset to some extent by a reduction in costs associated with the
135.293 check.
Satisfactory completion of a flight review to satisfy 14 CFR 61.56
is valid for operation of an MU-2B only if that flight review is
conducted in an MU-2B series airplane. A flight review completed in the
MU-2B series airplane satisfies the requirement for the flight review
in 14 CFR 61.56 for all other aircraft except the Robinson R22/R44 [see
SFAR 73, Section 2(c)].
Satisfactory completion of an FAA Wings Program, as described in 14
CFR 61.56(e) and Advisory Circular Number 61-91H, may not be
substituted for the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane annual recurrent
flight training. Depending on the type of training required, credit may
be given for training performed in the airplane, flight training
device, or simulator as described in the Mitsubishi MU-2B Training
Program, Part Number YET 05301, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2006.
The FAA would require that all training conducted in the MU-2B
series airplane be performed using the procedures and techniques as
described in the applicable MHI Airplane Flight Manual, (see Table 1)
and using a MHI MU-2B checklist accepted by the MU-2B Flight
Standardization Board or other MU-2B series airplane checklist that has
been accepted by the MU-2B Flight Standardization Board. The proposed
rule would allow the use of FAA-approved AFM revisions issued after the
effective date of the SFAR.
Aeronautical Experience. The FAA Safety Evaluation Team and the FSB
determined that the MU-2B is more complex than most light twin engine
airplanes and other light turbine airplanes within its class. Safe
operation of the MU-2B requires a high degree of pilot skill and
discipline typically found in type-rated, transport category airplanes.
The FAA determined that a minimum standard of pilot experience in
multiengine airplanes would help to improve safety for the MU-2B. The
FAA proposes that no person may act as PIC of a Mitsubishi MU-2B
airplane for purposes of flight unless that person has logged a minimum
of 100 flight hours of PIC time in multiengine airplanes.
Flight Instructors. The FSB determined that strict adherence to the
normal, abnormal, and emergency flight procedures are critical to the
safe operation of the MU-2B. The MU-2B has many differences from
comparable multiengine airplanes. Differences include the airplane
design, with full span wing spoilers and high drag gear doors with
lengthy cycle times. Analysis and review of common operating practices
show that application of procedures for other multiengine airplanes can
be detrimental when performed in the MU-2B. For example, many
multiengine airplane curriculums teach a procedure for engine failure
just after takeoff that requires the pilot to apply maximum power,
retract the landing gear and flaps, identify and verify the failed
engine, and then fix or feather the engine. However, if a pilot applies
this technique to the MU-2B series airplane, it would be contrary to
operational procedures developed by MHI. The resulting negative
transfer of knowledge can impede performance during abnormal and
emergency situations. Effective instruction in the MU-2B requires a
thorough understanding of all commonly taught multiengine procedures as
well as the differences between them and those for the MU-2B.
Understanding the differences between these techniques can only come
from extensive operational experience in the MU-2B as well as other
multiengine airplanes. The FAA proposes that no flight instructor may
provide instruction or conduct a flight review in a Mitsubishi MU-2B
series airplane unless that instructor meets the flight instructor
experience and currency requirements of this SFAR before giving flight
instruction in the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane. All flight
instructors (Airplane) who provide flight training in the Mitsubishi
MU-2B series airplane would be required to have a minimum total PIC
time of 2000 flight hours, 800 hours PIC in multiengine airplanes, and
300 hours PIC time in the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane. Fifty
flight hours of Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane PIC experience must
have been within the last 12 months. Flight instructors (Simulator or
Flight Training Device) would be required to have a minimum total PIC
time of 2,000 flight hours and 800 hours PIC in multiengine airplanes.
For flight instructors (Simulator or Flight Training Device), 50 flight
hours of Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane PIC experience, or 50 hours
providing simulator or flight training device instruction, must have
been within the last 12 months.
The FAA proposes that for the purpose of flight checking,
designated pilot examiners, training center evaluators, and check
airmen must have completed the appropriate qualification in the
Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane in accordance with sections 3 and 6 of
this SFAR. The FAA believes that an effective evaluation of an airman's
skill can only be assessed by individuals with a high degree of
knowledge of the latest techniques, training profiles, and procedures
for the MU-2B.
The FAA proposes that designated pilot examiners and check airmen
must have 100 hours PIC flight time in the Mitsubishi MU-2B series
airplane and
[[Page 56910]]
must maintain currency in accordance with section 6 of this SFAR. The
FSB determined this to be a minimum acceptable experience level for
individuals administering practical tests and other demonstrations of
proficiency.
All training conducted in the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane must
be done in accordance with the procedures and techniques as described
in the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU-2B Training Program (Part Number
YET 05301, dated July 27, 2006, Revision 1, or a FAA-approved revision
issued after the effective date of this SFAR) and the Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual.
The FAA proposes that all training conducted in the Mitsubishi MU-
2B series airplane must be done using a MHI MU-2B checklist accepted by
the MU-2B Flight Standardization Board or other MU-2B checklist that
has been accepted by the MU-2B Flight Standardization Board, and
identified in section 7, paragraph (c) of the operational requirements
of the proposed SFAR.
Currency Requirements and Flight Review. The complexity of the
airplane and differences in operational procedures requires that
recurrent training and testing be done only in the MU-2B. During the
safety evaluation and FSB evaluation, the exclusiveness of the MU-2B
for recurrent training and testing was examined. Through this process
the FAA determined that all recurrent training, testing, and flight
reviews must be conducted in the MU-2B. Therefore, the FAA is proposing
the landing currency requirements of 14 CFR 61.57 must be maintained in
the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane. Landings in any other multiengine
airplanes would not meet the landing currency requirements for the
Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane. Landings in either short-or long-body
Mitsubishi MU-2B model airplanes may be credited toward landing
currency in both MU-2B model groups.
The FAA has determined that instrument currency does not need to be
maintained exclusively in the MU-2B. Therefore, instrument experience
obtained in other category and class of airplanes may be used to
satisfy the instrument currency requirements of 14 CFR 61.57.
Satisfactory completion of the flight review required by 14 CFR
61.56 would be valid for operation of an MU-2B series airplane only if
that flight review is conducted in an MU-2B airplane. Satisfactory
completion of a flight review in the MU-2B airplane satisfies the
requirements of 14 CFR 61.56 for other airplanes.
Operating Requirements. The safety evaluation team and the FSB
conducted a pilot workload evaluation to determine if safety would be
enhanced with the use of an autopilot during single-pilot IFR
operations. Many of the recent accidents involved single pilot IFR
operations in high-density terminal areas, with high workloads
conducted at night. Using techniques developed by National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, testing showed a significant reduction in
single pilot workload and stress and improved performance when an
autopilot, a standardized user-friendly pilot checklist, and revised
AFM procedures were used in actual flight conditions.
The FAA proposes the following additional operational requirements:
1. No person may conduct single-pilot operations under IFR, or in
IFR conditions, or night VFR conditions in the Mitsubishi MU-2B series
airplane unless that airplane has a functioning autopilot.
2. No person may operate a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane unless
a copy of a specific revision level of the AFM Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) listed in the SFAR is carried
on board the airplane and accessible for each flight at the pilot
station. The proposed rule would allow the operator to have onboard the
airplane, and accessible for each flight at the pilot station, a FAA-
approved revisions issued after the effective date of the SFAR.
3. No person may operate a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane unless
a MHI MU-2B checklist accepted by the MU-2B Flight Standardization
Board, or other MU-2B series airplane checklist that has been accepted
by the MU-2B Flight Standardization Board, is carried on board the
airplane and the checklist is accessible during each flight at the
pilot station. This checklist must be used by the flight crewmembers
when operating the airplane.
Alternatives Considered
The FAA considered the following alternatives to the approach set
forth in the proposed SFAR:
1. Take no action. The FAA discarded this alternative because it
would not enhance safety. Among other things, the FAA proposes to
enhance safety by creating new pilot training, experience, and
operating requirements. Following an increased accident and incident
rate in the MU-2B series airplane, the FAA conducted a safety
evaluation of the MU-2B series airplane and found that changes in the
training and operating requirements for that airplane are needed.
2. Prohibit all operations of the MU-2B series airplane within the
National Airspace System. The FAA has determined there is no
justification to ground the airplane. The airplane meets its original
type certification basis as found in three type certification analyses
(Special Certification Reviews conducted in 1984, 1997, and the Safety
Evaluation of 2005 that found the airplane complies with the applicable
certification rules).
3. Propose an SFAR and in addition, require an aircraft type rating
for the MU-2B but remove requalification training. The FAA rejected
this alternative because it would not meet the FAA's goal of ensuring
that all MU-2 pilots receive continued training in the correct
procedures for normal, abnormal, and emergency operations.
4. Propose an SFAR, and in addition, require a second pilot.
Requiring a second pilot for all MU-2B series airplanes would be a more
costly option than the proposed SFAR training and autopilot
requirements (single-pilot IFR operations would be required to have a
functioning autopilot). An operator has the option of running a two-
pilot crew to enhance safety, but the FAA would not require it.
Conclusion
To protect the flying public, the FAA finds that many of the
recommendations of the safety evaluation and the FSB report should be
incorporated into an SFAR that applies to all operations of the
Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane conducted within the National Airspace
System of the United States.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposal contains the following new information collection
requirements.
Title: Mitsubishi MR-2 Series Airplane Special Training,
Experience, and Operating Requirements.
Summary: This SFAR would create new pilot training, experience, and
operating requirements for the MU-2 airplane. Following an increased
accident and incident rate in the MU-2B series airplane, the FAA
conducted a safety evaluation of the MU-2B series airplane and found
that changes in the training and operating requirements for that
airplane are needed. These proposed regulations would mandate
additional operating requirements and improve pilot training for the
MU-2B series airplane.
Use of: This proposal would support the information needs of the
FAA to determine that each pilot has received
[[Page 56911]]
the appropriate training in the MU-2 airplane.
Respondents: The respondents to this proposed information
requirement are pilots who receive the training required by this SFAR.
The FAA estimates that there are about 600 MU-2 pilots in the United
States.
Frequency: The FAA estimates each of these 600 pilots would
complete the information required to verify training with a logbook and
final phase check form endorsement by the flight instructor. Thus, the
annual frequency of information requirements is 1200.
Annual Burden Estimate: Because these endorsements are expected to
take only 5 minutes each, the total hour burden is 100 hours. (5
minutes x 600 pilots x 2 = 100 hours). The total costs, based on an
instructor salary of $50.00 per hour is $8,606.
The agency is soliciting comments to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are required to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), the FAA has submitted the information requirements associated
with this proposal to the Office of Management and Budget for its
review. Individuals and organizations may submit comments on the
information collection requirement by November 27, 2006, and should
direct them to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
document. Comments also should be submitted to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Building, Room
10202, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20053, Attention: Desk
Officer for FAA.
According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5
CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the
collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection
requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control number for this information collection will be
published in the Federal Register, after the Office of Management and
Budget approves it.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that
correspond to these proposed rules.
Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
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 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this proposed rule. We suggest readers seeking
greater detail read the full initial regulatory evaluation, we have
placed in the docket for this rulemaking (FAA-2006-24981).
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5) would
not have a significant effect on international trade; and (6) would not
impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or
on the private sector by exceeding the threshold identified above.
These analyses are summarized below.
Total Costs and Benefits of this Rule
The estimated cost of this proposed rule is about $40.6 million
($27.1 million in present value terms), and the estimated benefit is
about $85.4 million ($55.4 million in present value terms). More
detailed benefit and cost information is provided below. The FAA seeks
comments on these estimates.
Who Is Potentially Affected by this Rule
All pilots and operators of the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane
are affected by this rulemaking. (This also includes flight
instructors, designated pilot examiners, training center evaluators,
and check airmen.)
Assumptions:
Discount rate--7%. Sensitivity analysis was performed on
3% and 7%.
Period of Analysis--2008 through 2017.
Compliance with the final rule will be required 180 days
after the rule's effective date.
Benefits of this Rule
We estimate the proposed rule would provide benefits of $85.4
million (or $55.4 million in present value) from 2008 through 2017 in
2006 dollars. In the absence of a new rule, it is likely that future
accidents will occur on MU-2B airplanes in a manner similar to what has
happened in the past. A key benefit of the proposed rule would be the
avoidance of these accidents.
Costs of this Rule
The FAA estimates the compliance costs of this proposed rule to be
about $40.6 million (or $27.1 million in present value). The table
below shows a breakdown of these total costs by category.
Total Costs
[[Page 56912]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28SE06.291
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 RFA provides that
the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement
providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning
should be clear.
The FAA believes that this proposal would result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose
of this analysis is to provide the reasoning underlying the FAA
determination.
Under Section 603(b) of the RFA, the analysis must address:
Description of reasons the agency is considering the
action.
Statement of the legal basis and objectives for the
proposed rule.
Description of the record keeping and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule.
All Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with the proposed rule.
Description and an estimated number of small entities to
which the proposed rule will apply.
Analysis of small firms' ability to afford the proposed
rule.
Analysis of disproportionate impact.
Analysis of competitive impact.
Estimation of the potential for business closures.
Description of the alternatives considered.
Under Title 49 of the United States Code, the FAA Administrator is
required to consider the following matters, among others, as being in
the public interest:
Assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security
as the highest priorities in air commerce. [See 49 U.S.C. 40101(d)(1).]
Promoting the safe flight of civil aircraft in air
commerce by prescribing regulations that are necessary for safety [See
49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5).]
Additionally, it is the FAA Administrator's statutory duty
to carry out his or her responsibilities ``in a way that best tends to
reduce or eliminate the possibility or recurrence of accidents in air
transportation.'' [See 49 U.S.C. 44701(c).]
Accordingly, this proposed rule would amend Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations to address the increasing number of accidents
involving the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America MU-2B series
airplane. The proposed rule would require additional special training,
aeronautical experience, and operating requirements for pilots that
operate the Mitsubishi MU-2B.
A. Projected Reporting, Record Keeping and Other Requirements.
We expect no more than minimal new reporting and record-keeping
compliance requirements to result from this proposed rule.
B. Overlapping, Duplicative, or Conflicting Federal Rules.
We are unaware that the proposed rule will overlap, duplicate or
conflict with existing Federal Rules.
C. Estimated Number of Small Firms Potentially Impacted.
Using the size standards from the Small Business Administration for
Air Transportation and Aircraft Manufacturing, we have defined
companies as small entities if they have fewer than 1,500 employees.
We considered the economic impact on small-business part 91, 121,
and 135 operators. The MU-2B's operating in part 91 are not for hire or
flown for profit. The part 91 operators primarily operate the MU-2B
either as a personal-use airplane or companies operate them where
aviation is not their primary business. We found no part 121 operators
of the MU-2B airplane.
We then obtained a list of part 91 and 135 MU-2B operators \1\ from
the Flight Standards division of the FAA and from the FAA Aviation
Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) Center (formerly known
as the National Aviation Safety Data Analysis Center (NASDAC)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AFS-260; April 5, 2006 and ``Review of Aviation Accidents
and Incidents involving the Mitsubishi MU-2 Aircraft'', October
2005; NASDAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using information provided by the World Aviation Directory and
ReferenceUSA, operators that are subsidiary businesses of larger
businesses and businesses with more than 1,500 employees were
eliminated from the list of small entities. For the remaining
businesses, we obtained company revenue from those two sources. In many
cases the data was not public.
We were unable to obtain employment or annual revenue data for the
following MU-2B operators:
[[Page 56913]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28SE06.292
The methodology discussed above resulted in the following list of
14 U.S. MU-2B operators, with less than 1,500 employees, who operate 61
airplanes.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28SE06.293
The FAA has determined that it is essential that all flight
training be conducted per a single standardized training program that
reflects piloting procedures as found in the Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM). In order to accomplish this, the companies that train pilots
would themselves have to train their current MU-2B instructors to this
new standard. Based on our discussions with MU-2B pilot training
centers we established that they would continue providing their MU-2B
instructors with the latest training available. We believe that most
MU-2B pilot training centers are small business entities according to
the Small Business Administration for Air Transportation. We also
believe the rule would result in offsetting training revenue for the
MU-2B pilot training centers.
D. Cost and Affordability for Small Entities.
To assess the cost impact to small business part 91 and 135 MU-2B
operators, we estimated the pilot training costs and the number of
pilots per operator that needed training. The training costs have a
large and immediate impact on the operator. As noted in the cost
section of this evaluation, the following table summarized the per
pilot costs over the 10-year analysis period:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28SE06.296
Because insurance companies currently require all businesses to
provide training for their MU-2B pilots, we determined the 14 U.S.
small entity companies identified above would incur an additional
$12,604 requalification cost and annual recurrent training costs of
$1,937 per pilot. We assumed every company would have two pilots for
[[Page 56914]]
each MU-2B they operate. We are also assuming that the final rule will
become effective in two years. On that basis, the present value of the
pilot training cost for an MU-2B pilot would be about $22,032, or an
annual average training cost of $2,203 (discounted at seven percent).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28SE06.294
We estimated each operator's total compliance cost by multiplying
the average annual discounted pilot training cost by the number of MU-
2B pilots employed. We estimate the number of pilots by assuming each
firm employs two pilots per MU-2B airplane. Next, we took this product
and multiplied it by the number of MU-2B airplanes the small business
operator currently has in their fleet. We then measured the economic
impact on small entities by dividing the estimated average annual
present value compliance cost for their fleet by the small entity's
annual revenue. For this analysis, if the cost of compliance exceeds
two percent of an operator's annual operating revenue, we determine
that as a significant economic impact. As shown in the following table,
the pilot training cost is estimated to be greater than two percent of
annual revenues for three small entity operators.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28SE06.295
Thus, the FAA determined that small entities would be significantly
affected by the proposed rule.
E. Business Closure Analysis.
For MU-2B operators, the ratio of average annual present-value
costs to annual revenue shows that three of the 14 U.S. small business
air operator firms analyzed would have ratios in excess of two percent,
and such a ratio may have a significant financial impact when this
proposed rule becomes effective. The remaining operators have an
average annual present-value cost to annual revenue ratio less than two
percent. To fully assess whether this proposed rule would force a small
entity into bankruptcy requires more financial information than is
readily available.
We performed a cost of compliance analysis by dividing the economic
impact costs by the average value of the fleet for each part 135
operator. We first conducted an Internet search for MU-2Bs on the
market. From this search we obtained the selling price for 19 MU-2Bs
currently on the market. Summing the 19 MU-2B's selling price, then
dividing by 19, we computed the average selling price of $510,250. In
order to validate this average cost, we then computed a weighted
average price by age and hours flown. These weighted average prices
were both within 2.5% of the average selling price. The following table
shows the results of the average selling price and the weighted average
price:
[[Page 56915]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28SE06.297
We calculated the economic impact costs by dividing the product of
the average annual present value cost per pilot by the number of pilots
by the product of the average selling price by the number of MU-2Bs the
small-entity operates. As shown in the following table, the pilot
training costs of the small entities is estimated to be 0.86 percent of
the average selling price of the small entities fleet.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28SE06.298
We do not believe that these additional compliance costs, relative
to the value of the asset, would cause any of the impacted firms to go
into bankruptcy, but seek comment, with supportive justification, to
determine the degree of hardship the proposed rule will have on these
businesses.
F. Competitive Analysis.
In order to determine the competitive impact of the rule on small
entities, we looked at the type of market for each of the affected
small entity's business. The following table details these results.
[[Page 56916]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28SE06.299
Since markets of the 14 small entities cover 12 distinctly
different areas, we believe the diversity of the companies' business
lines would not create a competitive disadvantage. From the Business
Closure Analysis above, we do not believe this proposal will cause any
of the impacted small entity firms who operate MU-2B's to go into
bankruptcy. We invite public comment on the potential competitive
impact of the proposed rule.
G. Disproportionality Analysis.
Given the sparse firm and market data publicly available, we cannot
discern the small firm competitive impact relative to large firms from
this proposed rule.
We invite public comment on the disproportional potential impact of
the proposed rule on small entities versus large entities. Affected
small entities are invited to discuss:
(a) The size of their business and how the proposed regulations
would result in a significant economic burden upon them as compared to
larger organizations in the same business community; and
(b) How the proposed regulations could be modified to take into
account small entities' differing needs or capabilities versus large
entities.
Comments received on regulatory flexibility issues are addressed in
the statement of considerations for the final rule.
H. Analysis of Alternatives.
Alternative One
The ``baseline,'' ``do nothing,'' or status quo alternative has no
compliance costs but would not accomplish the intent of Congress'
recommendation. The FAA rejected this ``do nothing'' alternative
because the proposed rule would enhance safety and prevent more MU-2B
related accidents.
Alternative Two
This alternative would prohibit all operations of the MU-2B series
airplane within the National Airspace System. The FAA has determined
that there is little justification to ground the airplane. The airplane
meets its original type certification basis as found in three type
certification analyses (Special Certification Reviews conducted in
1984, 1997, and the Safety Evaluation of 2005 that found that the
airplane complies with the applicable certification regulations).
Alternative Three
This alternative would keep the proposed SFAR, except that it would
require an aircraft type rating for the MU-2B, but remove
requalification training. This alternative would not meet the FAA's
goal of ensuring that all MU-2B pilots receive training in the correct
procedures for abnormal and emergency operations.
Alternative Four
This alternative would keep the proposed SFAR, and in addition,
require a second pilot. Requiring a second pilot for all MU-2B
airplanes would be a substantially more costly option than the proposed
SFAR training and autopilot requirements (single-pilot IFR operations
would be required to have a functioning autopilot). In addition, the
FAA has determined that use of an autopilot provides a level of safety
comparable to a two-pilot crew and therefore does not propose requiring
a second crew member. The FAA invites comment on whether there are
advantages to requiring two crew members that exceed the safety
benefits of requiring an autopilot. An operator has the option of
running a two-pilot crew to enhance safety, but the FAA would not
require it.
In summary, the FAA believes that this proposal would have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We were
able to obtain employment and annual revenue data for 14 small entities
that operated MU-2B airplanes. The pilot training cost is estimated to
be greater than two percent of annual revenues for three of these small
entities. Therefore, the FAA certifies that this rule would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the
potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that it responds
to a domestic safety objective and is not considered an unnecessary
barrier to trade.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
[[Page 56917]]
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $128.1 million in lieu of $100
million.
This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. The
requirements of Title II do not apply.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and therefore would not have federalism implications.
Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the Administrator, when changing regulations in title 14
of the CFR in manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation
modes other than aviation, and to establish such regulatory
distinctions as he or she considers appropriate. The FAA therefore
specifically requests comments on whether there is justification for
applying the proposed rule differently in intrastate operations in
Alaska.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use
The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 61
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety measures.
14 CFR Part 91
Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Freight, Incorporation
by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 135
Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:
PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
INSTRUCTORS
1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-
44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
2. Add Special Federal Aviatio