Pilot in Command Proficiency Check and Other Changes to the Pilot and Pilot School Certification Rules, 54095-54110 [2011-22308]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 31, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54095-54110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22308]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 61, 91, 141, and 142

[Docket No.: FAA-2008-0938; Amendment Nos. 61-128, 91-324, 141-15, and 
142-7]
RIN 2120-AJ18


Pilot in Command Proficiency Check and Other Changes to the Pilot 
and Pilot School Certification Rules

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the FAA's regulations concerning pilot, 
flight instructor, and pilot school certification. This rule will 
require pilot-in-command (PIC) proficiency checks for pilots who act as 
PIC of turbojet-powered aircraft except for pilots of single seat 
experimental jets and pilots of experimental jets who do not carry 
passengers. It allows pilot applicants to apply concurrently for a 
private pilot certificate and an instrument rating and permits pilot 
schools and provisional pilot schools to apply for a combined private 
pilot certification and instrument rating course. In addition, the rule 
will: Allow pilot schools to use internet-based training programs 
without requiring schools to have a physical ground training facility; 
revise the definition of ``complex airplane;'' and allow the use of 
airplanes with throwover control wheels for expanded flight training. 
The final rule also amends the FAA's regulations concerning pilot 
certificates to allow the conversion of a foreign pilot license to a 
U.S. pilot certificate under the provisions of a Bilateral Aviation 
Safety Agreement (BASA) and Implementing Procedures for Licensing 
(IPL). The FAA has determined these amendments are needed to enhance 
safety, respond to changes in the aviation industry, and reduce 
unnecessary regulatory burdens.

DATES: These amendments become effective October 31, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this final rule contact Gregory French, Airman Certification and 
Training Branch, General Aviation and Commercial Division, AFS-810, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 493-5474; e-mail 
Gregory.French@faa.gov. For legal questions concerning this final rule 
contact Michael Chase, Esq., Office of Chief Counsel, AGC-240, 
Regulations

[[Page 54096]]

Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3110; e-mail 
Michael.Chase@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is 
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator, including the 
authority to issue, rescind, and revise regulations. Subtitle VII, 
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's 
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Chapter 447--Safety Regulation. Under section 
44701, the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft 
in air commerce by prescribing regulations necessary for safety. Under 
section 44703, the FAA issues an airman certificate to an individual 
when we find, after investigation, that the individual is qualified 
for, and physically able to perform the duties related to, the position 
authorized by the certificate. In this final rule, we amend the 
training, qualification, certification, and operating requirements for 
pilots.
    These changes are intended to ensure that flight crewmembers have 
the training and qualifications to operate aircraft safely. For this 
reason, the changes are within the scope of our authority and are a 
reasonable and necessary exercise of our statutory obligations.

II. Executive Summary

    The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on August 31, 
2009, (74 FR 44779) included 16 proposed changes to the FAA's existing 
pilot, flight instructor, and pilot school certification regulations. 
Of the proposed rule changes, proposal 2, which would require 
proficiency checks for PICs of single-piloted turbojet-powered 
aircraft, and proposal 3, which would permit application for an 
instrument rating concurrently with a private pilot certificate, raised 
the largest response by commenters. Upon review of the comments, the 
FAA has concluded that the rule requiring proficiency checks for 
single-piloted turbojet-powered aircraft was not well suited to 
experimental turbojet-powered aircraft and had the potential to add 
significant expense for the pilots of those aircraft. The final rule 
allows alternative methods of compliance for pilots of experimental 
jets that possess more than a single seat. It excludes from the 
proficiency check requirement those pilots of experimental jets that 
possess more than a single seat who do not carry passengers and those 
pilots of experimental jets that possess a single seat. The FAA has 
also modified the rule permitting concurrent application for a private 
pilot certificate and instrument rating because the rule as proposed in 
the original NPRM failed to recognize that the prerequisite of 50 hours 
of cross-country time for the instrument rating could not easily be met 
by a student pilot. The FAA has added a provision to Sec.  61.65 to 
accommodate an alternative method of compliance with that requirement.
    Finally, the NPRM proposed to replace the 10 hours of training in a 
complex airplane required for pilots applying for a commercial pilot 
certificate with 10 hours of advanced instrument training. These 
proposals would have resulted in changes to both Part 61 and Part 141. 
However, in response to the public comments received and in light of 
the recently passed Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration 
Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-2163) that addresses flight 
crewmember training, the FAA has elected not to adopt these proposals.

III. Background

A. Summary of the NPRM

    The following proposals were contained in the NPRM.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Proposal No.                  CFR designation                  Summary of the proposed changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................  Sec.   61.1(b)(3)............  Proposal to revise the definition of ``complex
                                                                airplane'' to include airplanes equipped with a
                                                                full authority digital engine control (FADEC)
                                                                and move it from Sec.   61.31(e) to Sec.
                                                                61.1(b)(3).
2.............................  Sec.   61.58(a)(1) & (2) and   Proposal to require a Sec.   61.58 PIC
                                 (d)(1)-(4).                    proficiency check for PICs of single piloted,
                                                                turbojet-powered airplanes.
3.............................  Sec.   61.65(a)(1)...........  Proposal to permit the application for and the
                                                                issuance of an instrument rating concurrently
                                                                with a private pilot certificate for pilots.
4.............................  Sec.   61.71(c)..............  Proposal to allow the conversion of a foreign
                                                                pilot license to a U.S. pilot certificate based
                                                                on an Implementation Procedures for Licensing
                                                                (IPL) agreement.
5.............................  Sec.   61.129(a)(3)(ii)......  Commercial pilot certificate, airplane single
                                                                engine class rating--Proposal to replace the 10
                                                                hours of complex airplane aeronautical
                                                                experience with 10 hours of advanced instrument
                                                                training.
6.............................  Sec.   61.129(b)(3)(ii)......  Commercial pilot certificate, airplane
                                                                multiengine class rating--Proposal to replace
                                                                the 10 hours of complex multiengine airplane
                                                                aeronautical experience with 10 hours of
                                                                advanced instrument training.
7.............................  Sec.   91.109(a) and (b)(3)..  Proposal to expand the use of airplanes with a
                                                                single, functioning throwover control wheel for
                                                                providing expanded flight training. This
                                                                proposal parallels the long standing grants of
                                                                exemptions that the FAA has issued to many
                                                                petitioners for use with certain airplanes with
                                                                a single, functioning throwover control wheel.
8.............................  Sec.   141.45................  Proposal to allow pilot schools and provisional
                                                                pilot schools an exception to the requirement to
                                                                have a ground training facility when the
                                                                training course is an online, computer-based
                                                                training program.
9.............................  Sec.   141.55(c)(1)..........  Proposal to allow pilot schools and provisional
                                                                pilot schools an exception to the requirement to
                                                                describe each room used for ground training when
                                                                the training course is an online, computer-based
                                                                training program.
10............................  Part 141, Appx. D, para.       Commercial pilot certification course for an
                                 4.(b)(1)(ii).                  airplane single engine class rating--Proposal to
                                                                replace the 10 hours of complex airplane
                                                                training with 10 hours of advanced instrument
                                                                training.
11............................  Part 141, Appx. D, para.       Commercial pilot certification course for an
                                 4.(b)(2)(ii).                  airplane multiengine class rating--Proposal to
                                                                replace the 10 hours of complex multiengine
                                                                airplane training with 10 hours of advanced
                                                                instrument training.

[[Page 54097]]

 
12............................  Part 141, Appx. I, para.       Additional airplane single engine class rating at
                                 4.(a)(3)(ii).                  the commercial pilot certification level--
                                                                Proposal to replace the 10 hours of complex
                                                                airplane training with 10 hours of advanced
                                                                instrument training.
13............................  Part 141, Appx. I, para.       Additional airplane multiengine class rating at
                                 4.(b)(2)(ii).                  the commercial pilot certification level--
                                                                Proposal to replace the 10 hours of complex
                                                                multiengine airplane training with 10 hours of
                                                                advanced instrument training.
14............................  Part 141, Appx. I, para.       Additional airplane single engine class rating at
                                 4.(j)(2)(ii).                  the commercial pilot certification level--
                                                                Proposal to replace the 10 hours of complex
                                                                airplane training with 10 hours of advanced
                                                                instrument training.
15............................  Part 141, Appx. I, para.       Additional airplane multiengine class rating at
                                 4.(k)(2)(ii).                  the commercial pilot certification level--
                                                                Proposal to replace the 10 hours of complex
                                                                multiengine airplane training with 10 hours of
                                                                advanced instrument training.
16............................  Part 141, Appx. M............  Proposal to establish a combined private pilot
                                                                certification and instrument rating course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The public comment period closed on November 30, 2009.

B. Summary of Comments

    The FAA received 441 comments on the NPRM. Commenters consisted of 
aviation industry associations, flight schools, flight instructors, and 
pilots. Most commenters expressed multiple opinions, concerns, and 
suggestions, which were often repeated by others. Common areas of 
concern are grouped by subject for response.

C. Changes From the NPRM to the Final Rule

    The single most significant change from the original proposal 
relates to Sec.  61.58, which will require a PIC of a turbojet-powered 
aircraft to receive an annual pilot proficiency check. As proposed in 
the NPRM, those pilots who operated experimental jets would have 
incurred the most significant costs; however, those costs were 
inadvertently not included in the initial cost analysis. The language 
as proposed would have required annual checks in virtually every 
experimental jet for which the pilot held an authorization to operate 
if the pilot intended to serve as PIC in that aircraft. Because of the 
inherent nature of operating historic turbojet-powered aircraft, this 
would have entailed, in some cases, debilitating expenses for the 
pilot(s). Therefore, we have modified the rule by adding a paragraph to 
Sec.  61.58 to exclude from the proficiency check requirement those 
pilots of experimental jets that, by original design, possess only a 
single seat because those aircraft cannot carry passengers. Existing 
limitations to the operation of those aircraft adequately address any 
other potential safety issues. Another provision, also not proposed in 
the NPRM, was added to Sec.  61.58(d) to accommodate pilots of 
experimental jets that, by original design or through modification, 
possess more than a single seat. Pilots of those aircraft who wish to 
carry passengers may use any single Sec.  61.58 proficiency check or 
equivalent check taken in another turbojet-powered aircraft to exercise 
the PIC privileges for all experimental jet aircraft for which the 
pilot holds an authorization. This Sec.  61.58 proficiency check or 
equivalent must have been accomplished in the prior 12 months. The 
requirement for experimental jet pilots of multi-seat aircraft to 
receive annual proficiency checks is based on the carriage of 
passengers on those aircraft. Another provision was added to 
accommodate pilots of multi-seat experimental jet aircraft who have not 
received a proficiency check within the prior 12 months. These pilots 
may continue to operate those experimental jet aircraft in accordance 
with their authorizations; however, they are prohibited from carriage 
of any passengers other than authorized designees, instructors, or FAA 
personnel until such time as they successfully complete the proficiency 
check.
    This final rule amends Sec.  61.65(a)(1) to allow a student pilot 
to train concurrently for both the private pilot certificate and 
instrument rating. The amendment as proposed in the NPRM had a 
potential for decreasing safety and adding unnecessary economic burden 
to pilots engaged in a combined course because it would have required a 
student pilot to obtain 50 hours of cross-country flight time as PIC 
through a series of endorsements for solo flights. The FAA has added a 
new paragraph (g) to Sec.  61.65 to allow an applicant for a combined 
private pilot certificate with instrument rating to credit cross-
country time performing the duties of pilot in command, when 
accompanied by an instructor to satisfy a majority of the cross-country 
PIC time required by Sec.  61.65(d)(1), (e)(1) and (f)(1). A similar 
privilege already exists under Sec.  61.129(b)(4). The intent is to 
limit this credit to no more than the 45 hours of cross-country PIC 
time remaining after the student pilot has completed the 5 hours of 
solo cross-country flight time required by Sec. Sec.  61.109(a)(5)(i) 
for a single engine rating, 61.109(b)(5)(i) for a multiengine rating, 
and 61.109(e)(5)(i) for a powered-lift rating. For a private pilot 
helicopter rating, the credit for cross-country time as PIC is limited 
to the 47 hours of cross-country PIC time remaining after completion of 
the 3 hours of solo cross-country flight time required by Sec.  
61.109(c)(4)(i). Any credit allowed under this rule is limited to those 
students enrolled in a combined private pilot instrument rating course 
of training that culminates in a combined practical test. If at the 
conclusion of a program of combined training under this rule, the 
student instead elects to take only the private pilot practical test, 
then any solo cross-country time accrued while accompanied by an 
instructor prior to the completion of the private pilot practical test 
will not be creditable as solo PIC time.
    The FAA will not adopt the proposed amendments to replace the 10 
hours of complex aeronautical experience with 10 hours of advanced 
instrument training for commercial pilot applicants as required by 
Sec.  61.129 and Part 141, Appendices D and I. A complete discussion of 
this issue is included in this final rule under ``IV. Discussion of the 
Final Rule, C. Replace Complex Airplane Aeronautical Experience with 
Advanced Instrument Training.''

IV. Discussion of the Final Rule

A. Recurrent Proficiency Check for a Pilot in Command of a Single-
Piloted Turbojet-Powered Aircraft

    This rule extends the requirement for recurrent proficiency checks 
to pilots operating single-piloted turbojet-powered aircraft.
    This proposal garnered a significant number of comments. The 
overwhelming majority opposed the proposed rule as written. None of the 
commenters expressed resistance to the

[[Page 54098]]

imposition of an annual proficiency check for standard category, 
single-piloted turbojet-powered aircraft. Some expressed the opinion 
that this proposal was appropriate for the Very Light Jet (VLJ) 
community. Their concern focused exclusively on the effect that such a 
rule, as proposed, would have on the owners and pilots of experimental 
jets which are not type certificated aircraft.
    Commenters expressed concern in two principal areas related to 
experimental jets. First, they cited the prohibitive costs of the 
annual checks in each of the experimental jets that they are authorized 
to operate--estimates for which ranged from $10,000 to more than 
$50,000 per year. A number of commenters stated they would no longer be 
able to operate due to the costs. Many commented that the FAA had not 
adequately examined the anticipated cost to owners of experimental jets 
before proposing this rule. The second issue that commenters expressed 
concern over was the extremely limited availability of Experimental 
Aircraft Examiners (EAE) to conduct the required tests. Currently, the 
FAA has authorized nine EAEs that are qualified in experimental jets. 
With the limited pool of EAEs, many commenters stated that it would be 
physically impossible to provide the number of annual proficiency 
checks that would be required.
    A small subset of those commenting on this proposed rule change 
expressed approval for the proposal as applied to the VLJ community. 
They stated that it would be appropriate because single-pilot 
operations are more demanding since such pilots do not have a co-pilot 
to share the workload and, thus, should be checked annually for 
competency.
    Some commenters asked us to clarify the requirements for a Sec.  
61.58 proficiency check for single-pilot operations in standard 
category aircraft. Specifically, they wanted to know whether existing 
annual training requirements required by most insurance companies would 
qualify. The FAA believes that annual training required by insurance 
companies will culminate in a proficiency check which will satisfy the 
requirement for a Sec.  61.58 proficiency check if conducted in 
accordance with this section, Sec.  61.58.
    One commenter requested that, in addition to the changes already 
proposed, the FAA further amend Sec.  61.58 to allow the check to serve 
as an acceptable means of completing the instrument proficiency check 
under Sec.  61.57(d) if conducted in an airplane certified for 
instrument flight rules (IFR) flight and given to the pilot holding a 
type rating that does not contain the visual flight rules (VFR) 
limitation ``VFR ONLY.'' We recognize that in many cases a Sec.  61.58 
check may meet the requirements of a Sec.  61.57(d) check. If it does 
so, then the authorized official may so endorse the pilot's training 
and currency record. However, in many cases, a Sec.  61.58 check may 
not cover everything required for a Sec.  61.57(d) check and therefore 
would not qualify for one. The individual providing the check must make 
that distinction. It is the pilot's responsibility to ensure that he or 
she remains in regulatory compliance. The FAA does not believe it is 
necessary to amend Sec.  61.58 as suggested by the commenter.
    Finally, one commenter suggested that the PIC proficiency check for 
pilots of single-piloted turbojet-powered airplanes should be 
applicable only to those who are using the aircraft for hire. 
Commercial pilots of these aircraft may carry passengers or conduct 
other operations for hire under certain conditions and rules. Any pilot 
at the private or higher level may carry non-paying passengers on not-
for-hire flights. Their responsibility for the safety of their 
passengers and their environment is no less than if they operated for 
hire. Therefore, the FAA does not see any safety benefit in limiting 
the proficiency checks to for-hire operations.
    The FAA has concluded, upon analysis of the comments, that the 
proposed revision to Sec.  61.58 cannot work for the experimental jet 
community for several reasons. The experimental jet fleet is not 
standardized; even among the same make and model virtually no two are 
identical although they frequently share similar handling 
characteristics. Full compliance with the rule as proposed would 
require a proficiency check in each individual aircraft (not just make 
and model) for which the pilot holds a letter of authorization. The 
costs incurred for proficiency checks in experimental jets are 
extremely high due to the unique historic value and technology of the 
aircraft. For example, the majority of these aircraft are historic 
military jets that employ outdated technology that requires high levels 
of specialized maintenance making them expensive to operate. In 
addition, the vintage jet engines in most of these aircraft typically 
are inefficient in fuel use as opposed to modern jet engines resulting 
in additional expenses in their operation.
    The FAA believes that the operation of experimental jet aircraft 
does not represent a significant hazard in the United States. There are 
a limited number of aircraft in the experimental jet fleet (just over 
1,200). Experimental jets are limited in both time and activity when 
measured against standard category turbojet aircraft. Under current 
regulations and policies, experimental jets are limited to 
demonstration and exhibition flights only and are not permitted to fly 
over populated areas. See Sec.  91.319; Flight Standards Information 
Management System [FSIMS], Order 8900.1, Volume 5, Chapter 9, Section 
2. The relatively high operating costs of these aircraft compared to 
those of standard category aircraft limits their operation even 
further. This combination of low numbers of aircraft, high operational 
costs, and strict existing regulatory policies limits their exposure to 
risk significantly. Further, unlike most standard category turbojet 
aircraft, there are no alternatives to conducting proficiency check 
flights in an airplane because there are presently no approved 
simulators for the fleet of experimental jets. Finally, there are an 
inadequate number of qualified experimental jet check pilots to conduct 
the number of annual checks that would be necessary under the proposed 
rule.
    Notwithstanding these considerations, the FAA firmly believes that 
pilots conducting flight in turbojet-powered experimental aircraft with 
more than one seat, who wish to carry a passenger, must receive annual 
proficiency checks to ensure their continued understanding of the 
unique operating characteristics common to turbojet-powered aircraft.
    An experimental jet aircraft that by original design or through 
modification possesses more than a single seat, has the potential to 
carry one or more passengers. In such a case, the pilot will be 
directly responsible for those passengers. We believe these 
circumstances demand a higher level of confirmation of the pilot's 
ability to operate safely in a turbojet- powered aircraft. For the 
reasons outlined previously, however, the FAA believes it is 
impractical to implement Sec.  61.58 as published in the NPRM. 
Therefore, for the purpose of meeting the regulatory intent of the 
proposed rule as applied to the pilots of experimental jets, the FAA 
will accept any of the following as an alternative to requiring a 
proficiency check in any multi-seat experimental jet for which the 
pilot holds an authorization:
    1. A single proficiency check by an EAE in any one of the 
experimental jet aircraft for which the airman holds an authorization 
to operate if conducted within the prior 12 months;
    2. A single proficiency check by an EAE in any experimental jet 
(e.g., if a

[[Page 54099]]

pilot acquires a new authorization to operate an additional 
experimental jet aircraft, the check for that new authorization will 
meet the intent), if conducted within the prior 12 months;
    3. Maintaining qualification under an Advanced Qualification 
Program (AQP) under Subpart Y of part 121;
    4. Any pilot proficiency check given in accordance with subpart K 
of part 91, parts 121, 125, or 135 conducted within the prior 12 months 
if conducted in a turbojet-powered aircraft;
    5. Any other Sec.  61.58 proficiency check conducted within the 
prior 12 months if conducted in a turbojet-powered aircraft.
    Any one of the listed checks will apply to the PIC privileges for 
all of the experimental jets for which the pilot holds an authorization 
for a given 12-month period.
    A pilot of a multi-seat turbojet experimental jet aircraft who has 
not received a proficiency check within the prior 12 months as outlined 
here may continue to operate such aircraft in accordance with the 
pilot's authorizations. However, the pilot is prohibited from carriage 
of any persons in any turbojet-powered experimental jet aircraft with 
the exception of individuals authorized by the Administrator to conduct 
training, flight checks, or perform pilot certification functions in 
such aircraft during flights specifically related to training, flight 
checks, or certification.
    The FAA has determined that those experimental jet aircraft that 
have only a single seat do not pose a risk to the public due to the 
strict constraints placed on the pilot's authorizations and the 
aircraft's inherent inability to transport anyone other than the pilot. 
Therefore, this section will not apply to those pilots of experimental 
jet aircraft that, through original design, possess only a single seat.
    For the reasons stated, this final rule adopts Sec.  61.58 with 
modifications to accommodate pilots of experimental jets.

B. Application for and Issuance of an Instrument Rating Concurrently 
With a Private Pilot Certificate

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise Sec.  61.65(a) to permit 
the application for an instrument rating concurrently with a private 
pilot certificate. Several commenters expressed concern that the 
proposal would result in a reduction in the experience that would 
otherwise be gained when a pilot completes the private pilot 
certificate first and then returns later for the instrument rating. 
This concern arose because Sec.  61.65(d)(1), (e)(1), and (f)(1) 
require, as a prerequisite to application for an instrument rating, 
that the pilot have acquired 50 hours of cross-country pilot-in-command 
(PIC) time for single-engine, multiengine, or powered-lift aircraft, 
respectively. Commenters believed that, if the rule were published as 
proposed, the cross-country requirements would be eliminated. This 
perception was inaccurate. However, upon further analysis, the FAA 
recognized that those specific requirements had not been fully 
addressed in the NPRM. As proposed in the NPRM, it would be possible, 
although difficult, for the pilot concurrently training for the private 
pilot certificate and instrument rating to acquire the required PIC 
cross-country time because the pilot would hold only a student pilot 
certificate. In such cases, the student pilot could acquire the 
requisite 50 hours of PIC cross-country time only through a series of 
individually endorsed solo flights. Under current regulations, student 
pilots may log PIC time only when flying solo as the sole occupant of 
the aircraft and are not permitted to carry passengers. See 14 CFR 
61.89. Currently, under Sec.  61.109(a)(5)(i) (single engine), Sec.  
61.109(b)(5)(i) (multiengine), and Sec.  61.109(e)(5)(i) (powered-
lift), a student pilot seeking private pilot certification is required 
to complete 5 hours of solo cross-country flight. Under Sec.  
61.109(c)(4)(i) a student pilot is required to complete 3 hours for the 
helicopter rating. These hours qualify as PIC time since the student 
pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft. The original intent of 
Sec.  61.65(d)(1), (e)(1), and (f)(1) was to have the pilot develop a 
basis of experience as a certificated pilot prior to pursuing the 
instrument rating. Requiring a student pilot to complete an additional 
45 hours (47 hours for the helicopter rating) of cross-country solo 
flight would not be in the best interest of safety. The additional 
hours of cross-country solo flight would also impose significant 
additional costs on the pilot.
    The FAA recognizes the value of the experience gained during cross-
country flight and does not intend to eliminate the 50-hour 
requirement. We also recognize that requiring the pilot to acquire 50 
hours of cross-country flight time under a series of student-pilot solo 
endorsements would not enhance safety and would largely negate the 
purpose of this combined training. Therefore, although not proposed in 
the NPRM, a new paragraph (g) has been added to Sec.  61.65 to allow 
the pilot seeking combined private pilot certification and an 
instrument rating to credit up to 45 hours (47 hours for the helicopter 
rating) of the required 50 hours of cross-country flight time as PIC 
when the student pilot is performing the duties of pilot in command 
while accompanied by an instructor. This provision is similar to the 
privilege already offered under Sec.  61.129(b)(4).
    The 5 hours of solo flight, as the sole occupant of the aircraft, 
required under Sec.  61.109(a)(5)(i) (single-engine), Sec.  
61.109(b)(5)(i) (multiengine), and Sec.  61.109(e)(5)(i) (powered-
lift), or 3 hours of solo flight required under Sec.  61.109(c)(5)(i) 
(helicopter) must still be met. The student pilot may log cross-country 
PIC time toward the balance of the 50-hour requirement if the training 
is conducted during cross-country flight with an instructor on board 
the aircraft. This provision applies only to training conducted for a 
combined private pilot certificate and instrument rating. The credit 
for cross-country PIC time when accompanied by an instructor is limited 
to 45 hours (47 hours for the helicopter rating) of the required 50 
hours of cross-country PIC time.
    The FAA has determined that this allowance will result in a better 
prepared and more competent private pilot with an instrument rating at 
the conclusion of the combined training. A significant portion of the 
combined training will, of necessity, have been conducted during cross-
country flight, which represents an environment more representative of 
the environment in which the pilot can be expected to operate upon 
completion of their training. In addition, this cross-country flight 
time will be more useful to the pilot than an equivalent number of 
hours of solo flight. The pilot will be directly under the supervision 
of an instructor who, presumably, will better ensure that correct 
habits are firmly established.
    Because there was no proposed requirement for 50 hours of cross-
country PIC time for an instrument rating under Appendix M to part 141, 
this final rule adopts Appendix M to part 141 as proposed in the NPRM 
with minor editorial changes. The FAA anticipates, however, that any 
approved training program under part 141 will include cross-country 
flight time as pilot in command due to the value of such aeronautical 
experience.

C. Replace Complex Airplane Aeronautical Experience With Advanced 
Instrument Training

    The NPRM proposed to replace the requirement for 10 hours of 
training in a complex airplane with 10 hours of advanced instrument 
training for pilots

[[Page 54100]]

who apply for the commercial pilot certificate. Accordingly, the FAA 
proposed to amend Sec. Sec.  61.129(a)(3)(ii), 61.129(b)(3)(ii), 
Appendix D to part 141 paragraphs 4.(b)(1)(ii), 4.(b)(2)(ii); Appendix 
I to part 141 paragraphs 4.(a)(3)(ii), 4.(b)(2)(ii), 4.(j)(2)(ii), and 
4.(k)(2)(ii). The FAA has elected not to adopt these proposed 
amendments.
    The FAA received a wide variety of comments on this set of 
regulatory amendments, with approximately half of the comments in favor 
of implementing the changes. Some in favor of the proposals felt that 
maintaining and operating complex aircraft was too costly, placing 
burden on flight training providers and those seeking a commercial 
pilot certificate. Another portion of supporters felt that advanced 
instrument experience would be more valuable than the current complex 
training requirement because the additional instrument time would 
better prepare airmen for employment as commercial pilots. One 
commenter expressed belief that complex training should only be 
required prior to operating a complex aircraft and the current 
regulation requiring a complex endorsement is sufficient. Although the 
advanced instrument training need not have been conducted in a 
technologically advanced aircraft, some commenters offered that these 
proposals are appropriate given the technological advancements in 
aircraft avionics.
    The remaining comments were either against adopting all provisions 
of proposed changes or suggested that only a portion of the proposed 
changes should be implemented. A number of commenters were opposed to 
the removal of the 10 hours of complex training citing the potential 
for an increase in gear up landing incidences. Some commenters felt 
that the experience gained operating complex aircraft is essential for 
safety since commercial pilots may encounter complex aircraft in their 
career. One commenter suggested that a minimum number of complex 
training hours be required for a complex endorsement instead of 
requiring complex training for a commercial pilot applicant. Other 
commenters felt that the requirement of advanced instrument training 
would be redundant and would present unnecessary cost for those 
individuals who already hold an instrument rating. Further, those 
commercial pilots who do not have an instrument rating are already 
limited in privilege by existing regulations. One commenter urged the 
FAA to consider the differences between those aircraft that are 
mechanically complex and those aircraft that are electronically complex 
in amendments to the regulations.
    The recent enactment of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation 
Administration Extension Act of 2010 also influenced the FAA's decision 
not to adopt the proposals affecting commercial pilot requirements. 
Section 208 of this law directs the FAA to ``conduct rulemaking 
proceedings to require part 121 air carriers to provide flight crew 
members with ground training and flight training or flight simulator 
training[hellip]to recognize and avoid the stall of an aircraft or, if 
not avoided, to recover from the stall' and `to recognize and avoid an 
upset of an aircraft or, if not avoided, to execute such techniques as 
available data indicate are appropriate to recover from the upset.'' 
Although this section specifically addresses training for crewmembers 
operating in the air carrier environment, the FAA believes that 
conforming changes to the commercial pilot requirements may be prudent 
and necessary in the near future.
    The FAA finds validity in the points raised through the public 
comments. Additional time is necessary to analyze changes to the 
regulations that were the subject of these proposals. The FAA also 
feels compelled to review the commercial pilot certification 
regulations alongside the requirements of Public Law 111-216. 
Therefore, the FAA will not adopt the proposed amendments that replace 
the 10 hours of complex training with the 10 hours of advanced 
instrument training. The FAA intends to devote additional consideration 
to the commercial pilot requirements and may publish a future notice of 
proposed rulemaking to amend these regulations.

D. Conversion of a Foreign Pilot License to a U.S. Pilot Certificate

    This final rule amends the FAA's regulations concerning pilot 
licenses to allow the conversion of a foreign pilot license to a U.S. 
certificate under the provisions of a Bilateral Aviation Safety 
Agreement (BASA) and Implementing Procedures for Licensing (IPL).
    On June 12, 2000, the United States and Transport Canada Civil 
Aviation (TCCA) signed a BASA that permits a pilot holding certain 
pilot licenses or certificates from either country to obtain a pilot 
license or certificate from the other county after the pilot applicant 
has met the appropriate qualifications and certification requirements. 
Before executing an IPL, the BASA process requires the FAA and a 
foreign civil aviation authority to first evaluate each other's pilot 
licensing standards and procedures and compare them to their own to 
determine what, if any, additional requirements would be necessary to 
assure that the pilot is in compliance with their own standards. The 
FAA and TCCA completed the conformity analysis and executed an IPL on 
July 14, 2006, that establishes the procedures each country must follow 
to achieve the objectives of the BASA. The FAA-Canada IPL allows 
holders of FAA pilot certificates and TCCA pilot licenses to convert to 
Canadian pilot licenses and U.S. pilot certificates, respectively. The 
IPL currently is limited to the airplane category of aircraft at the 
private, commercial, and airline transport pilot levels of licenses or 
certificates. The IPL includes the following ratings or qualifications: 
instrument rating, class ratings of airplane single-engine land (ASEL) 
and airplane multiengine (AMEL), type ratings, and night qualification 
addressed under part 61 and Canadian Aviation Regulations Part IV. The 
FAA and TCCA have agreed that they may amend the IPL to allow 
conversion of other licenses or certificates in the future.
    The amendment to Sec.  61.71(c) would not only provide the legal 
basis for expansion of the FAA-TCCA BASA/IPL, but would also allow 
similar BASA/IPL arrangements with other ICAO Contracting States, as 
determined by the Administrator in the interest of safety. Therefore, 
the FAA revises Sec.  61.71 to allow holders of foreign pilot licenses 
to convert to U.S. pilot certificates where the U.S. Government and the 
foreign government have concluded a BASA and associated IPL. The 
issuance of a U.S. private pilot certificate and ratings under Sec.  
61.75 is a separate pilot certification process, as is the process 
described in Sec.  61.153.
    A majority of the commenters approved of this proposal. However, 
several commenters suggested that holders of foreign pilot certificates 
receive inferior training and were not up to the standards of pilots 
trained in the United States. One commenter asked for assurance that 
any country that the United States entered into a BASA with would allow 
conversion of a U.S. pilot certificate to a foreign pilot license in 
that country. Finally, one organization expressed concern that there 
would be lack of oversight of the foreign pilot training program and 
that the influx of foreign IPL certificate holders would erode the 
wages, benefits, and working conditions of U.S. airline pilots, and 
would have a detrimental effect on U.S. flight schools.
    As discussed above, the FAA has fully considered these issues. The 
FAA

[[Page 54101]]

believes that countries which enter into BASA with the United States 
will fully meet both the mutually agreed upon U.S. and International 
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards, and that such agreements 
are reciprocal. Oversight of the foreign flight training facilities has 
and will continue to be the responsibility of the ICAO affiliate 
nations. Additionally, the FAA does not anticipate such agreements will 
interfere with the ability of U.S. flight schools to conduct business 
and may, in fact, enhance their success. For many years, foreign 
students have come to the United States to receive both primary and 
advanced flight training, largely for economic reasons. In light of 
these considerations, entering into BASA with other ICAO contracting 
states will encourage pilots from those countries to seek more 
economical training because their U.S. certificates may be converted to 
a license issued by their national licensing authority.
    This final rule adopts 61.71(c) as proposed in the NPRM with one 
editorial change to include a reference to the bilateral agreement 
which is the basis for entering into an IPL with an ICAO Contracting 
State.

E. Proposal To Revise the Definition of ``Complex Airplane''

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise the definition of 
``complex'' airplane to include airplanes equipped with a full 
authority digital engine control (FADEC) and move the definition from 
Sec.  61.31(e) to Sec.  61.1(b)(3).
    The majority of commenters supported this rule. Those who 
disapproved were consistent in their concern that this proposal was 
over-simplifying the practical test for the commercial pilot 
certificate. They expressed concern that the complex aircraft, with 
propeller and other thrust controls, still existed and that 
``professional pilots'' should be able to operate those aircraft. The 
FAA recognizes that the technology is changing and that FADEC aircraft 
are growing in availability. The FAA also recognizes that professional 
pilots may never encounter the type of controls that FADEC aircraft 
replace. This is particularly true for those who transition directly 
from flight academies to the airlines. This proposal simply reflects 
the changing duties and activities of a professional pilot.
    Several commenters misunderstood an important aspect of the 
proposal and expressed concern that the proposal would require use of a 
FADEC-equipped airplane for complex training, supplanting the more 
conventionally-equipped light training airplane. This is not the case. 
Those aircraft that were previously defined as complex will continue to 
qualify for any application where a complex aircraft is required. This 
amendment simply adds the option to use a FADEC-equipped airplane with 
retractable landing gear and flaps for complex airplane training if the 
pilot chooses to do so.
    This final rule adopts Sec. Sec.  61.31(e) and 61.1(b) as proposed 
in the NPRM with clarifying changes as related to the definition of 
complex seaplanes.

F. Expanded Use of Airplane With a Single Functioning Throwover Control 
Wheel for Certain Kinds of Flight Training

    The amendment to Sec.  91.109 permits the use of a functioning 
throwover control wheel for certain flight training that includes the 
flight review required by Sec.  61.56, and the recent flight experience 
and instrument proficiency check required by Sec.  61.57.
    Several commenters expressed concern over the lack of instructor 
control during the training. The fact that the FAA has been issuing 
exemptions to allow the use of a functioning throwover control wheel 
for flight training for many years has provided demonstrated evidence 
of the safety of such operations. This amendment will eliminate the 
need for future exemptions for this purpose.
    One commenter who opposed the proposal stated that it was 
unnecessary because it applied to a limited, aging fleet. The commenter 
indicated that the current practice of issuing exemptions to allow for 
the use of such aircraft for flight training is adequate. The purpose 
of the amendment is to eliminate the need to issue exemptions for a 
practice that has a proven record of safety. The fact that this rule 
will be applicable only to a limited fleet is not relevant.
    One commenter described the discrepancy over the wording in the 
NPRM, expressing that the description of the rule change did not 
coincide with the verbiage in the proposed regulation. Upon review, the 
FAA found validity in this comment. The NPRM indicates that the 
amendments to this rule aim to parallel certain exemptions that have 
been issued in the past for Sec.  91.109 (a) and (b). The final rule 
has been modified to increase clarity in this regard.
    Another commenter expressed concern about obtaining the recent 
flight experience required by Sec.  61.57. The commenter believed that 
permitting the use of a throwover control wheel for Sec.  61.57 did not 
make sense because a pilot not already meeting the recency requirements 
of that section cannot legally act as PIC when a certified flight 
instructor (CFI) is on board. The commenter is partially correct in 
stating that a pilot whose recency has lapsed under Sec.  61.57 may not 
complete the requirements of Sec.  61.57 in an airplane equipped with a 
throwover control wheel because the pilot may not act as PIC. The 
commenter's assertion is true if the airman had allowed a lapse in the 
takeoff and landing experience requirements dictated by Sec.  61.57 (a) 
and (b). An airman would, however, be allowed to obtain flight 
instruction to acquire takeoffs and landings prior to such a lapse in 
these experience requirements. The key concept in this example is 
whether the airman is able to act as PIC and therefore meet the 
requirement stipulated by Sec.  91.109 (b) (2).
    That same commenter expressed concern over the language in Sec.  
91.109 that requires a flight instructor in an airplane with only a 
single functioning throwover control wheel to ``have logged at least 25 
hours of pilot in command flight time'' in the make and model of 
airplane with a single functioning throwover control wheel involved in 
the instruction. The commenter stated that the language could be 
interpreted to require that the 25 hours must be flown with a single 
wheel and throwover yoke. The commenter's interpretation was correct; 
however, upon further review the FAA has concluded that this 
requirement is unnecessarily burdensome. The requirement in the final 
rule will not demand that the instructor have logged 25 hours of PIC 
flight time in a make and model of an aircraft that was obtained in 
aircraft having a throwover control wheel. The intent of the 25 hours 
in make and model that remains in the final rule is to ensure that the 
instructor has the proficiency and skill in that type of aircraft to 
safely provide instruction without the benefit of direct elevator and 
aileron control.
    There was also confusion expressed over whether the 25 hours must 
be as acting PIC, or as logged PIC time, e.g., as the sole manipulator 
or CFI providing dual instruction. The answer is yes to all. If the 
CFI's flight history involved PIC time logged as a student, a pilot, 
and/or a CFI in an aircraft that is of the particular make and model 
involved, then that time may be applied to the 25-hour requirement. The 
FAA received a similar comment expressing a request that ``model'' be 
defined as ``all versions of a manufacturer's type or series in the 
same class of aircraft.'' As stated previously, the 25-hour requirement 
is in place to ensure that the instructor has the proficiency and skill 
in that type of

[[Page 54102]]

aircraft to safely provide instruction. Therefore, the 25-hour 
requirement in the particular make and model of airplane will remain in 
the final rule.
    Based on the established safety record of these operations, the FAA 
adopts Sec.  91.109(a) and (b)(3) as proposed in the NPRM with the 
changes described above.

G. Exception to Requirement for Ground Training Facility When Training 
Is an Online Computer-Based Training Program

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to except pilot schools and 
provisional pilot schools from the requirement to describe each room 
used for ground training when the training course is an online 
computer-based training program.
    The responses to this proposal were overwhelmingly favorable. A few 
commenters expressed concern over the lack of personal interaction 
between the instructor and the student when receiving knowledge 
training over the internet.
    The FAA fully understands the concerns that distance learning seems 
counterintuitive. However, for many years, knowledge training under 14 
CFR part 61 has been conducted successfully via remote learning through 
the internet or home video, or even with books alone. Additionally, 
colleges and universities have embraced distance learning and have 
found such training to be highly effective for multiple degree 
programs. Nevertheless, an endeavor such as flight training must 
include personal, one-on-one training with a flight instructor. 
Naturally, all actual flight training will involve such direct 
interaction. The flight training will reinforce the academic knowledge 
training that the student receives. Many schools already divide the 
one-on-one flight training portion of the student's learning experience 
from the ground-based classroom training, with different instructors 
serving each capacity. This has proven to be very effective. Any 
training that would be allowed in any online computer-based training 
program under 14 CFR part 141 will be reviewed, approved, and overseen 
by the FAA. Distance learning has been available to students training 
under 14 CFR part 61 for many years. This amendment, with additional 
oversight, simply extends distance learning to schools operating under 
14 CFR part 141.
    Upon further review, it was found that some of the proposed text 
presented in the NPRM pertained to existing regulations found in Part 
141, and therefore these portions have been moved to other sections of 
this Part or removed. In addition, minor editorial changes have been 
made for consistency with current regulations or to reflect current 
practice.
    This final rule adopts Sec. Sec.  141.45 and 141.55(c)(1) as 
proposed in the NPRM with clarifying changes described above.

H. Conforming Amendments

    Since this rule amends Sec.  61.1, the rule includes conforming 
amendments to Sec.  142.3 to make it consistent with the amendment to 
Sec.  61.1.

Miscellaneous Issues

    One organization submitted recommendations regarding the duration, 
renewal, and reinstatement requirements of flight instructor 
certificates. The arguments presented were cogent, thoroughly 
developed, and offered insightful observations. However, the FAA 
believes that pursuing that regulatory path is beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking effort and will not address those issues at this time.

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Information collection requirements associated with this final rule 
have been approved previously by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3507(d)), and have been assigned OMB Control Numbers 2120-0021 
and 2120-0009.
    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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
control number.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and 
has identified no differences with these regulations.

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 final rule. Readers seeking greater detail 
should read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we have 
placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this 
final 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 ``significant'' as defined in 
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5) will not 
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States; and (6) will 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 Benefits and Costs of This Rule
    Over 10 years (2011 through 2020), the estimated total costs sum to 
$38.4 million with $1.8 million of cost savings for a net cost of 
approximately $36.6 million ($25.3 million discounted by 7% and $31.0 
million discounted by 3%). Total estimated benefits over the 10 years 
are approximately $96.5 million ($66.7 million discounted by 7% and 
$81.8 million discounted by 3%).
Who is potentially affected by this rule?
     Pilots who act as pilot in command of single-piloted 
turbojet-powered aircraft;

[[Page 54103]]

     Pilot Examiners who give proficiency checks in these 
aircraft;
     Corporations that own these aircraft;
     Applicants for private pilot certificates who may opt to 
apply for a combined private pilot certificate with instrument rating;
     Holders of foreign pilot licenses;
     Operators of aircraft with throwover control wheels;
     Providers of internet-based training under part 141; and
     Operators of complex aircraft.
    Assumptions:
    Estimates are in 2010 Dollars.
    Discount rates--7% and 3%.
    Period of analysis--2011 through 2020.
    Value of a fatality avoided--$6.0 million, value of serious 
injury--$345,000, value of minor injury--$12,000.
Changes From the NPRM to the Final Rule
    The following summarizes changes from the NPRM to the final rule 
that are relevant to the regulatory evaluation and differences in the 
final regulatory evaluation from the initial regulatory evaluation.
    To mitigate the impact on experimental turbojet-powered aircraft 
pilots and owners, the final rule allows alternative methods of 
compliance for pilots of experimental jets who possess more than a 
single seat and excludes from the proficiency check requirement those 
pilots of experimental jets that possess a single seat and those who 
are not carrying passengers or who are carrying persons authorized by 
the Administrator. Pilots of experimental jets that possess more than a 
single seat, either by original design, or through modification, will 
be allowed to perform their annual proficiency checks in any turbojet-
powered aircraft, and will not be required to have the check in an 
experimental jet, and one annual proficiency check in a turbojet-
powered aircraft will suffice. Therefore, if the pilot is type rated in 
other turbojet-powered aircraft and is taking annual proficiency checks 
in these aircraft that comply with Sec.  61.58, he or she will not need 
an additional check to be in compliance with the final revision to 
Sec.  61.58.
    However, in the NPRM regulatory evaluation, the FAA inadvertently 
did not include the cost of proficiency checks for pilots of 
experimental jets. The final rule regulatory evaluation includes those 
costs, but the costs are significantly less than they would have been 
under the more stringent requirements proposed in the NPRM.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed replacing the commercial pilot 
certificate requirement for 10 hours of training in a complex airplane 
with 10 hours of advanced instrument training. For reasons cited 
previously, the FAA has elected not to adopt this proposal.
Benefits of This Rule
    The quantified benefits of this rule consist of the value of 
fatalities, injuries and medical and legal expenses as the rule may 
avert more than 20 accidents if an annual proficiency check is required 
of pilots in command of those turbojet aircraft that are type 
certificated for single pilot operation and multi-seat experimental 
jets. The estimated safety benefits from flights in type certificated 
turbojets are $38.3 million; and from flights in experimental jets the 
estimated safety benefits are $58 million. These benefits are 
associated with the revisions to Sec.  61.58.
    Non-quantified benefits include:
     Less work for pilots and aviation authorities and more 
cooperation that are expected to result from the revision to Sec.  
61.71 which will allow the conversion of a foreign pilot license to a 
U.S. pilot certificate;
     Relieving part 141 schools from the requirements to have a 
ground training facility and to meet heating, lighting, ventilation, 
and location requirements for ground training space which is expected 
to result from the revisions to Sec.  141.45 and Sec.  141.55.
Costs of This Rule
    Costs: Total quantifiable costs of the changes, over 10 years, sum 
to approximately $38.4 million, with cost savings of approximately $1.8 
million for a net cost of $36.6 million ($25.3 million discounted by 7% 
and $31.0 million discounted by 3%).
    The FAA estimated $38.4 million of costs associated with the 
revision to Sec.  61.58, which extended the requirement for annual 
proficiency checks to pilots in command of single-piloted, turbojet-
powered aircraft with an exclusion for those pilots serving as PIC in 
an experimental jet that possesses, by original design, a single seat 
and those not carrying passengers. These 10 year costs are based on:
     An estimated 3,006 proficiency checks for pilots of type 
certificated turbojets at an net average cost of $3,914 per check for a 
total cost of $11.8 million; and
     An estimated 5,880 proficiency checks for pilots of 
experimental jets at an net average cost of $4,529 per check for a 
total cost of $26.6 million.
    Cost Savings: The FAA also estimated a total of $1.8 million in 
cost savings associated with the revisions to Sec.  61.65 and Appendix 
M to Part 141. These revisions will allow the application for and 
issuance of an instrument rating concurrently with a private pilot 
certificate for pilots. Pilots are expected to save money by completing 
the combined course in less time and taking one exam rather than two.

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.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Section 603 of the Act requires agencies to prepare and make 
available for public comment a final regulatory flexibility analysis 
(FRFA) describing the impact of final rules on small entities. Section 
603 of the Act specifies the content of a FRFA. Each FRFA must contain:
     A description of the reasons why action by the agency is 
being considered;
     A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis 
for, the final rule;
     A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the 
number of small entities to which the rule will apply;