Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. XX-Mitsubishi MU-2B Series Airplane Special Training, Experience, and Operating Requirements, 56905-56919 [06-8310]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[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