Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 71509 

1See AD 95–11–09, Robinson Helicopter 

Company Model R22 Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), 

https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/

AB0E6D73A5A548F186256A4D006126BD.0001. 

2See AD 95–11–10, Robinson Helicopter 

Company Model R44 Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), 

https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/

FED1D31B434F466E86256A4D00613579.0001. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, 

email fr.inspection@nara.gov, or go to: 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued on October 4, 2023. 

Victor Wicklund, 

Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–22488 Filed 10–16–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 61 

[Docket No. FAA–2023–2083; Notice No. 24– 

1] 

RIN 2120–AL89 

Robinson Helicopter R–22 and R–44 

Special Training and Experience 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This rulemaking would revise 

the Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

(SFAR), Robinson R–22/44 Special 

Training and Experience Requirements, 

to provide consistency with other FAA 

regulatory requirements, training, and 

testing publications. The rulemaking 

would remove the low gravity (low G) 

dual flight instruction requirement to 

align the SFAR with current aircraft 

placard requirements and the 

limitations section of the Rotorcraft 

Flight Manual/Pilot Operating 

Handbook (RFM/POH) set forth by 

Airworthiness Directives (ADs). This 

proposed revision would also update 

the SFAR so it mirrors the terminology 

currently used in the Helicopter Flying 

Handbook and Practical Test Standards 

(PTS). This rulemaking proposes to 

clarify the awareness training 

endorsement and flight review 

requirements for less experienced pilots, 

remove legacy dates, and update the 

applicability section to include ground 

and flight training, including flight 

reviews provided by authorized flight 

instructors. Additionally, the FAA 

proposes to add an expiration date to 

the SFAR to allow the FAA time to 

review and refine the R–22 and R–44 

requirements for ground training, 

aeronautical experience, including flight 

training, and flight reviews, before 

moving them to a permanent location in 

a separate subchapter. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

December 18, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2023–2083 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov/ and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at (202) 493–2251. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

https://www.regulations.gov/ at any 

time. Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to the Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cara 

M. Barbera, Training and Certification 

Group, General Aviation and 

Commercial Division, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–1100; email 

Cara.Barbera@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Overview of Proposed Rule 

B. Summary of the Costs and Benefits 

II. Authority for This Rulemaking 

III. Background 

A. SFAR 73 Final Rule Background 

Information 

B. AD 95–11–09 (R–22) and AD 95–11–10 

(R–44) Low G Cyclic Pushover 

Prohibition Background 

C. Recommendation and Proposal 

IV. Discussion of the Proposal 

A. Removal of Required Flight Training on 

the Effects of Low G Maneuvers and 

Proper Recovery Procedures 

B. Moving Flight Training Topic of Low G 

Hazards to Ground Training 

Requirements 

C. Awareness Training Renamed as Ground 

Training 

D. Flight Review Requirements for Pilots 

With Less Experience in R–22/R–44 

E. Enhanced Training in Autorotation 

Procedures 

F. Removal of Legacy Dates 

G. Add Persons Who Seek To Provide 

Ground Training or Flight Training or 

Conduct a Flight Review to Applicability 

Section 

H. Revise Term Blade Stall 

I. Revise Term Certified and Certificated 

for Flight Instructors 

J. R–22/R–44 Awareness Training 

Endorsement 

K. Add Expiration Date to SFAR No. 73 

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. International Trade Impact Assessment 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

F. International Compatibility 

G. Environmental Analysis 

VI. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

VII. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

B. Confidential Business Information 

C. Electronic Access and Filing 

D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Overview of Proposed Rule 

Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

(SFAR) No. 73, found in part 61 of Title 

14 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR), currently requires the effects 

of low G maneuvers and proper 

recovery procedures to be accomplished 

during dual instruction flight training. 

However, because of the inherent 

danger in performing low G maneuvers, 

Airworthiness Directives (ADs) 95–11– 

09 1 and 95–11–10,2 effective July 14, 

1995, prohibit intentionally inducing 

low G flight in Robinson model R–22 

and R–44 helicopters. The FAA 

proposes to remove the requirement to 

perform low G maneuvers during flight 

training due to safety concerns and to 

continue addressing these hazards in 

the ground training topic for low G 

hazards, which is established in the 

SFAR. 

The FAA proposes additional 

amendments to SFAR No. 73 to update 

and align its terminology with other 

FAA regulations and publications. 

Certain terminology in SFAR No. 73 has 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
71510 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

3See Robinson R–22/R–44 Special Training and 

Experience Requirements, 60 FR 11254 (March 27, 

1995). 

4The Mitsubishi MU–2B is another example of an 

instance where the FAA initially created an SFAR 

and later codified regulations specific to an aircraft 

to ensure safe operation. Similarly, the conflicts 

between SFAR No. 108 and FAA guidance 

prompted the FAA to codify regulations related to 

the Mitsubishi MU–2B. See 81 FR 61584. 

5See 60 FR 11254. 6See 60 FR 11254. 

not been defined or used in the same 

context as found in the Helicopter 

Flying Handbook, Practical Test 

Standards, and 14 CFR part 61. 

Changing this terminology would not 

impact the requirements of SFAR No. 73 

but would update the terms 

‘‘awareness,’’ ‘‘certified/certificated 

flight instructor,’’ and ‘‘blade stall’’ for 

consistency with part 61 terms and 

definitions. Throughout this NPRM, 

‘‘awareness training’’ will be referred to 

as ‘‘ground training.’’ In addition, the 

FAA proposes to replace the term 

‘‘enhanced’’ with more specific 

language outlining what is necessary to 

satisfy autorotation training in an R–22 

and/or R–44 helicopter. The 

terminology changes would not require 

updates to endorsements, websites, or 

other publications. 

The FAA proposes to memorialize 

current ground training general subject 

area requirements to simplify the model 

applicability endorsement. It also would 

improve formatting to focus on the 

requirements for flight reviews specific 

to SFAR No. 73. Finally, this 

rulemaking proposes to align the 

applicability section in the SFAR with 

its other sections by including 

applicability to flight instructors who 

conduct ground training, flight training, 

or a flight review. 

The FAA also proposes to add a fiveyear expiration date to SFAR No. 73. 

The addition of an expiration date 

would allow the FAA time to review 

and refine the requirements for R–22 

and R–44 helicopters and move them to 

a permanent location in Title 14 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, chapter 1. 

The changes proposed by this rule 

would not impose any additional 

requirements to the current regulations, 

nor would they render current 

requirements less restrictive. Rather, the 

proposed changes are intended to more 

clearly identify the current requirements 

for persons seeking to manipulate the 

flight controls, act as pilot in command, 

provide ground training or flight 

training, or conduct a flight review in a 

Robinson model R–22 or R–44 

helicopter that are unique to SFAR No. 

73, and not otherwise included in part 

61. 

B. Summary of the Costs and Benefits 

The FAA expects the proposal to 

promote safety without imposing costs 

by memorializing existing requirements, 

eliminating inconsistencies, and 

updating language. Thus, the FAA has 

determined that the proposal would 

have minimal economic effects and pose 

no novel or legal policy issues. 

Therefore, the FAA has determined that 

this proposal is not ‘‘significant’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 and is not ‘‘significant’’ as 

defined by DOT’s Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures. 

II. Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s 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. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes the scope of the 

FAA’s authority. 

The FAA is proposing this rulemaking 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart iii, section 

44701, General Requirements. Under 

these sections, the FAA prescribes 

regulations and minimum standards for 

practices, methods, and procedures the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce. This rulemaking 

proposal is within the scope of that 

authority. 

III. Background 

A. SFAR 73 Final Rule Background 

Information 

Title 14 CFR part 61 details the 

certification requirements for pilots, 

flight instructors, and ground 

instructors. Subparts C through G of part 

61 contain training requirements for 

applicants seeking rotorcraft category 

helicopter class ratings. These 

requirements do not address specific 

types or models of rotorcraft. However, 

in 1995, the FAA determined that 

specific training and experience 

requirements were necessary for the safe 

operation of Robinson model R–22 and 

R–44 model helicopters.3 4

The R–22 helicopter is a two-seat, 

reciprocating engine powered helicopter 

that is frequently used in initial student 

pilot training. The R–22 is one of the 

smallest helicopters in its class and 

incorporates a unique cyclic control and 

teetering rotor system. The R–44 is a 

four-seat helicopter with operating 

characteristics and design features that 

are similar to the R–22. Certain 

aerodynamic and design features of 

these aircraft result in specific flight 

characteristics that require particular 

pilot knowledge and responsiveness in 

order to be operated safely.5

As explained in the 1995 final rule, 

the FAA found the R–22 met 14 CFR 

part 27 certification requirements and 

issued a type certificate to Robinson in 

1979. However, the R–22 had a high 

number of fatal accidents due to main 

rotor/airframe contact when compared 

to other piston powered helicopters. 

Many of those accidents were attributed 

to pilot performance or inexperience, 

where low rotor revolutions per minute 

(RPM) or low ‘‘G’’ conditions caused 

mast bumping or main rotor-airframe 

contact accidents. 

In its analysis of accident data, the 

FAA found that pilots rated to fly the 

helicopter were not properly prepared 

to safely operate the R–22 and R–44 

helicopters in certain flight conditions. 

The FAA determined that additional 

specific pilot training was necessary for 

safe operation of these helicopters as 

part of a comprehensive program that 

responded to a high number of 

accidents. Other elements of this 

program included addressing design 

and operational issues, cited by the 

National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB), that may have been 

contributing factors in some of the 

accidents. Furthermore, at that time, the 

R–44 had been recently certified, and 

the FAA was concerned that the R–44 

would experience the same frequency of 

accidents because of the similar design. 

Accordingly, the FAA issued SFAR No. 

73, which, in addition to addressing 

pilot training, also included 

requirements for flight instructors and 

continued flight reviews in the specific 

model to be flown.6

In 2021, the FAA formed a Safety Risk 

Management (SRM) Team to perform a 

safety risk assessment of SFAR No. 73. 

The SRM Team included 

representatives from the FAA, 

Helicopter Association International 

(HAI), Robinson Helicopter Company, 

and two Designated Pilot Examiners 

(DPEs). Between November 16–18, 2021, 

and on January 19, 2022, the SRM Team 

met to analyze hazards associated with 

operating and training pursuant to 

SFAR No. 73 and determine whether the 

SFAR effectively controls risk or is no 

longer needed. 

Subject matter experts from the FAA 

and industry were invited to provide 

their input. After the SRM Team 

meeting concluded, Robinson 

Helicopter Company provided specific 

opinions and background material. The 

SRM Team’s analysis resulted in 

recommended modifications of SFAR 

No. 73 that are reflected in this 

proposed rule. A copy of the full SRM 

Team Safety Risk Assessment Report for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 71511 

7See Robinson Helicopter Company Safety 

Notices, https://robinsonheli.com/robinson-safetynotices/. 

8See Robinson Helicopter Company POH/FRM 

https://robinsonheli.com/current-status/. 

9See 14 CFR part 61 Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 73—Robinson R–22/R–44 Special 

Training and Experience Requirements. 

10See AD 95–11–09, Robinson Helicopter 

Company Model R22 Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), 

https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/

AB0E6D73A5A548F186256A4D006126BD.0001. 

11See AD 95–11–10, Robinson Helicopter 

Company Model R44 Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), 

https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/

FED1D31B434F466E86256A4D00613579.0001. 

12See National Transportation Safety Board, 

Special Investigation Report, Robinson Helicopter 

Company R22 Loss of Main Rotor Control 

Accidents, Adopted April 2, 1996, https://

www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/ 

SIR9603.pdf. 

13See AD 95–11–09, Robinson Helicopter 

Company Model R22 Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), 

https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/

AB0E6D73A5A548F186256A4D006126BD.0001. 

14See AD 95–11–10, Robinson Helicopter 

Company Model R44 Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), 

https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/

FED1D31B434F466E86256A4D00613579.0001. 

15 [Title] 60 FR 33686, (Jun. 29, 1995), Docket No. 

95–SW–24–AD. 

16See R–22 Docket No. 95–SW–24–AD; 

Amendment 39–9299; AD 95–11–09 and R–44 

Docket No. 95–SW–25–AD; Amendment 39–9300; 

AD 95–11–10, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ 

pkg/FR-1995-06-29/pdf/FR-1995-06-29.pdf. 

17 In essence, the ADs and RFM contradict the 

requirements in the SFAR, creating confusion and 

an inability to comply with both requirements. 

Flight instructors and flight schools adhere to the 

AD and RFM limitations and do not conduct SFAR 

73 low-G flight training. 

SFAR No. 73 is posted to the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

Since SFAR No. 73 was published, 

Robinson model R–22 and R–44 

helicopters have continued to operate 

throughout the world. Although other 

international civil aviation authorities 

have taken different approaches to 

implementing pilot certification 

standards, the manufacturer of these 

helicopters makes advisory material 

available to all operators worldwide.7

Safety notices, available both in the 

Pilot’s Operating Handbook/Rotorcraft 

Flight Manual (POH/RFM) 8 and on the 

Robinson Helicopter Company website, 

emphasize subject matter found in 

SFAR No. 73. Although these notices 

are not regulatory in nature, they 

provide guidance and recommended 

practices to owners of all Robinson 

helicopters. In addition, the 

manufacturer produces publications, 

including safety alerts, which are also 

located on the Robinson Helicopter 

Company website. The FAA anticipates 

the international aviation community 

will be interested in the outcome of this 

rulemaking. 

B. AD 95–11–09 (R–22) and AD 95–11– 

10 (R–44) Low G Cyclic Pushover 

Prohibition Background 

SFAR No. 73 consists of ground and 

flight training requirements, including 

low G flight training.9 However, shortly 

after issuance of this SFAR, the FAA 

prohibited intentionally inducing low G 

flight in R–22 and R–44 helicopters. 

This prohibition was published on July 

14, 1995, in ADs 95–11–09 (R–22) 10 and 

95–11–10 (R–44) 11 because of the 

inherent risk in performing those 

maneuvers. That action was prompted 

by FAA analysis of the manufacturer’s 

data that indicated a low G cyclic 

pushover maneuver may result in mastbumping on the Robinson model R–22 

helicopters. If uncorrected, this 

condition could result in an in-flight 

main rotor separation or contact 

between the main rotor blades and the 

airframe of the helicopter and 

subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. The ADs require installation 

of placards in the helicopter and 

insertion of a prohibition against low G 

cyclic pushover maneuvers into the 

limitations section of the RFM. 

C. Recommendation and Proposal 

While accidents in the R–22 and R– 

44 helicopters have declined markedly 

since SFAR No. 73 was issued, the 

NTSB has recommended that the FAA 

should ensure that SFAR No. 73, the 

Flight Standards Board specifications, 

and the ADs applicable to the operation 

of the R–22 and R–44 are made 

permanent.12 According to a special 

investigation report the NTSB issued on 

April 2, 1996, the special operating 

rules for flight instructors and students 

and low-experience and non-proficient 

pilots must continue in order to ensure 

the safe operation of the helicopter. 

The inconsistency between the low G 

flight training requirement in SFAR No. 

73 and the ADs’ prohibition on 

intentionally inducing low G flight has 

led to confusion regarding the actual 

requirements for flight training in R–22 

and R–44 helicopters. The FAA 

proposes to resolve that discrepancy by 

removing the requirement in SFAR No. 

73 to perform low G maneuvers during 

flight training. The FAA also proposes 

to revise certain language in this SFAR 

by updating terminology to make it 

consistent across FAA regulations and 

guidance. 

IV. Discussion of the Proposal 

A. Removal of Required Flight Training 

on the Effects of Low G Maneuvers and 

Proper Recovery Procedures 

Shortly after issuance of SFAR No. 73 

in 1995, the FAA issued priority letters 

AD 95–11–09 13 and AD 95–11–10 14 in 

response to FAA analysis of the 

manufacturer’s data that indicated a low 

G cyclic pushover maneuver may result 

in mast-bumping on the Robinson 

model R–22 and R–44 helicopters.15

These ADs prohibited intentionally 

induced low G flight in R–22 (AD 95– 

11–09) and R–44 (AD 95–11–10) 

helicopters in an effort to prevent inflight main rotor separation or contact 

between the main rotor blades and the 

airframe of the helicopter and 

subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. To provide immediate 

corrective action, the FAA issued these 

ADs by priority letters to all known U.S. 

owners and operators of Robinson 

model R–22 and R–44 helicopters on 

May 25, 1995, and then published them 

in the Federal Register as an 

amendment to 14 CFR 39.13 to make the 

mandate applicable to all persons.16

Since their publication, these ADs 

have conflicted with SFAR No. 73, 

which requires dual instruction (flight 

training) on the effects of low G 

maneuvers and proper recovery 

procedures.17 To resolve this conflict, 

the FAA proposes to remove the 

requirements for flight training on the 

effects of low G maneuvers and proper 

recovery procedures from paragraph 

2(b) of SFAR No. 73. Specifically, the 

FAA proposes to remove paragraphs 

2(b)(1)(ii)(D), 2(b)(2)(ii)(D), 2(b)(3)(iv), 

2(b)(4)(iv), and 2(b)(5)(iii)(D) from the 

current regulation. 

B. Moving Flight Training Topic of Low 

G Hazards to Ground Training 

Requirements 

Although the FAA is proposing to 

remove the requirement for flight 

training on the effects of low G 

maneuvers and proper recovery 

procedures under paragraph 2(b) of 

SFAR No. 73, the FAA will continue to 

require knowledge-based training on 

low G as a general subject area under 

paragraph 2(a)(3). To enhance the 

quality of low G ground training 

provided under paragraph (a)(3)(iv) and 

emphasize the importance of 

understanding the risks, the FAA 

proposes to reconfigure the current 

flight training requirement on low G 

maneuvers and proper recovery 

procedures as a ground training 

requirement in paragraph 2(a)(3)(iv). 

Specifically, the FAA proposes to 

replace the term ‘‘Low G hazards’’ in the 

ground training requirements in 

paragraph 2(a)(3)(iv) with the term 

‘‘Low G conditions, effects, and proper 

recovery procedures.’’ This proposal 

would resolve the conflict with the 

airworthiness requirements for the 

aircraft while continuing to underscore 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
71512 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

18See FAA–H–8083–21B, Helicopter Flying 

Handbook, published 2019; https://www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/ 

helicopter_flying_handbook. 

19Some PTSs may transition to Airman 

Certification Standards (ACS) to be utilized as 

practical test testing standard for airman certificates 

and ratings. The FAA published a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which proposes to 

incorporate these Airman Certification Standards 

and Practical Test Standards by reference into the 

certification requirements for pilots, flight 

instructors, flight engineers, aircraft dispatchers, 

and parachute riggers. See Airman Certification 

Standards and Practical Test Standards for Airmen; 

Incorporation by Reference, 87 FR 75955 (Monday, 

Dec. 12). 

20Section 61.1 defines aeronautical experience as 

‘‘pilot time obtained in an aircraft, flight simulator, 

or flight training device for meeting the appropriate 

training and flight time requirements for an airman 

certificate, rating, flight review, or recency of flight 

experience requirements of this part.’’ As such, 

aeronautical experience includes flight training. 

21Currently, SFAR No. 73 awareness training 

requires instruction in the general subject areas of 

energy management, mast bumping, low rotor RPM 

(blade stall), low G hazards; and rotor RPM decay. 

22A flight review consists of one hour of ground 

training and one hour of flight training on general 

operating and flight rules of part 91 and those 

maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion of 

the person giving the flight review, are necessary for 

the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the 

privileges of the pilot certificate. 14 CFR 61.56(a). 

23By completing a flight review in an R–22, a 

person would be current to act as PIC of an R–22 

and would satisfy the flight review requirements for 

any other helicopter (except for the R–44). By 

contrast, a pilot who completes a flight review in 

a helicopter other than the R–22 would be ineligible 

to act as PIC of the R–22. 

24Subsequent to issuance of SFAR 73, industrystandard training has emphasized autorotation 

training to maneuver the aircraft that avoids 

the importance of a pilot’s 

understanding of low G-related hazards 

when operating an R–22 or R–44 

helicopter. This more specific and 

comprehensive classroom coverage of 

the subject would educate pilots about 

the situations and conditions that lead 

to low G, the aerodynamic impact it has 

on the aircraft, and the proper way to 

recover to prevent an accident. 

The FAA proposes changes to the 

existing ground training requirements, 

which would align SFAR No. 73 with 

existing FAA publications that address 

low G hazards. For example, the 

Helicopter Flying Handbook (HFH) 

highlights the importance of low G 

recognition and recovery procedures but 

also discusses the risk of low G flight 

operations, stating that low G mast 

bumping has been the cause of 

numerous military and civilian fatal 

accidents.18 The HFH details the safety 

consequences of low G conditions, 

which further emphasizes the hazards of 

low G in flight and the importance of 

addressing these topics through ground 

training. 

Furthermore, the helicopter testing 

standard for airman certificates and 

ratings addresses knowledge elements 

related to low G, understanding and 

recognizing those conditions, and 

explaining the proper recovery 

procedure.19 This change to the 

regulations would ensure consistency 

with those testing standards. 

C. Awareness Training Renamed as 

Ground Training 

SFAR No. 73 distinguishes ground 

training requirements from aeronautical 

experience 20 requirements. This ground 

training, currently titled ‘‘awareness 

training,’’ is provided by an authorized 

instructor as part of the comprehensive 

program to help prevent accidents in 

Robinson R–22 and R–44 helicopters. 

The FAA has found that there is a need 

for all pilots operating these helicopters 

to be aware of certain characteristics 

associated with Robinson R–22 and R– 

44 helicopters. Awareness training 

requirements and the associated ground 

topics are detailed in SFAR No. 73, 

paragraph 2(a).21 Ground training, as 

defined by 14 CFR 61.1(b), ‘‘means that 

training, other than flight training, 

received from an authorized instructor.’’ 

On the other hand, the term ‘‘awareness 

training’’ does not have a corresponding 

definition. Therefore, the FAA proposes 

to change the title ‘‘Awareness 

Training’’ to ‘‘Ground Training.’’ This 

proposed change would align the 

regulatory language throughout part 61 

and provide clarity in differentiating the 

ground training section from the 

aeronautical experience requirements of 

SFAR No. 73. The FAA thereafter would 

interpret endorsements, websites, or 

other publications and documents that 

currently use the term ‘‘awareness 

training’’ as synonymous with the term 

‘‘ground training,’’ as defined in 14 CFR 

61.1(b). Adopting this interpretation 

would eliminate any requirement to 

amend previously issued endorsements 

or make immediate changes to current 

industry and FAA publications and 

documents. The FAA recommends that, 

if the rule change becomes final, the 

terminology used in industry 

documents or websites that utilize 

SFAR No. 73 (effective on June 29, 

2009) be updated during a normally 

scheduled revision process or a planned 

revision rather than as an unscheduled 

change immediately following the 

adoption of any final rule associated 

with this notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

D. Flight Review Requirements for Pilots 

With Less Experience in R–22/R–44 

Under § 61.56, no person may act as 

PIC of an aircraft unless, within the 

preceding 24 months, the person has 

completed a flight review in an aircraft 

for which that pilot is rated.22 Under 

2(c)(1) of SFAR No. 73, to continue 

acting as PIC of an R–22 after initially 

completing the SFAR training 

requirements, a person must complete 

the flight review in an R–22.23 A 

separate flight review is required for the 

R–44 under 2(c)(2). The flight review 

must include the awareness training and 

the flight training in SFAR No. 73 as set 

forth in paragraph 2(c)(3). Pilots who do 

not meet a threshold experience level in 

the R–22 or R–44 (i.e., those with less 

than 200 flight hours in helicopters and 

at least 50 hours in the model of 

Robinson helicopters) are required to 

complete an annual flight review to 

continue to act as PIC of the respective 

model of helicopter. The purpose of 

these provisions is to ensure persons 

operating Robinson R–22 and R–44 

maintain proficiency and competency 

over time. 

The flight review requirements for 

less experienced pilots are identified in 

paragraphs 2(b)(1)(ii) and 2(b)(2)(ii) and 

grouped together in the same paragraph 

that describes the general pilot-incommand flight training. This annual 

flight review requirement is not set forth 

as an individual condition in a way that 

calls attention to its necessity. 

Furthermore, these flight review 

requirements do not specify within the 

paragraphs what subjects this group of 

pilots must accomplish to satisfy the 

ground training portion of the flight 

review. To resolve these issues, the FAA 

proposes moving the annual flight 

review requirements located in 

2(b)(1)(ii) and 2(b)(2)(ii) for that 

specified group of pilots to separate 

paragraphs—2(b)(1)(iii) and 2(b)(2)(iii)— 

within the same section. This change 

will not impact the flight review 

requirements outlined in 2(c), as 

appropriate. This new paragraph would 

also identify the general subject areas 

from the awareness training as the 

required ground training and the 

associated abnormal and emergency 

procedures for the Robinson R–22 or R– 

44 helicopter, as appropriate. This 

proposed change would increase 

awareness of the annual flight review 

requirements and reduce the likelihood 

of pilots overlooking this requirement. 

E. Enhanced Training in Autorotation 

Procedures 

A pilot who seeks to manipulate the 

flight controls of a Robinson R–22 or R– 

44 helicopter must meet the applicable 

flight training requirements set forth in 

SFAR 73, paragraph 2(b), including 

enhanced training in autorotation 

procedures.24 The term ‘‘enhanced’’ is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 71513 

overshooting or undershooting the selected landing 

area that is consistent with the specificity proposed 

in this rule. See Safety Risk Assessment Report for 

SFAR 73: Robinson R–22/R–44 Special Training 

and Experience Requirements (2022). 

25See Safety Risk Assessment Report for SFAR 

73: Robinson R–22/R–44 Special Training and 

Experience Requirements (2022). 

26The FAA has received inquiries requesting 

clarification regarding SFAR No. 73 ground training 

endorsement and if it pertains to a specific 

Robinson model for training on general subject 

areas for the R–22 and R–44. 

27The proposed addition would become new 

paragraph (a)(4), and existing (a)(4) governing 

endorsements for completing the manufacturer’s 

safety course will be redesignated as paragraph 

(a)(5). 

not defined in part 61. In the context of 

the SFAR, the FAA interprets the term 

‘‘enhanced’’ to mean different 

autorotation iterations. On its face, 

however, the term lacks sufficient 

specificity to adequately inform the 

regulated community what autorotation 

maneuvers are expected to be 

performed. As such, the proposed 

change would remove the term 

‘‘enhanced’’ in SFAR No. 73, paragraphs 

2(b)(1)(ii), 2(b)(2)(ii), 2(b)(3), 2(b)(4), and 

2(b)(5)(iii) and replace it with language 

specifying that the training must 

include autorotation procedures and 

energy management, including utilizing 

a combination of flight control inputs 

and maneuvering to prevent 

overshooting or undershooting the 

selected landing area from an entry 

altitude that permits safe recovery. 

Revising the terminology would provide 

a better understanding of the necessary 

flight control inputs to achieve the 

desired airspeed, rotor RPM, and 

autorotation performance and improve 

pilot proficiency with the Robinson R– 

22 and R–44 helicopter. 

In addition, the FAA also proposes to 

add specificity in 2(b)(1)(ii)(B) and 

2(b)(2)(ii)(B) in place of the term 

‘‘enhanced’’ training in autorotation 

procedures to include autorotation 

training in the maximum glide 

configuration for the R–22 and both the 

minimum rate of descent and maximum 

glide configuration for the R–44.25 The 

R–22 training would differ slightly 

because the RFM/POH does not provide 

information for airspeed and main rotor 

revolutions per minute to perform an 

autorotation minimum rate of descent 

configuration, whereas the R–44 flight 

manual establishes those flight 

parameters. 

The proposed changes would more 

clearly establish the expectations for the 

autorotation portion of the flight 

training requirements to receive an 

endorsement to act as pilot in 

command, solo, conduct a flight review, 

or provide flight instruction in a 

Robinson R–22 and R–44. These 

autorotation procedures would align 

with the Helicopter Flying Handbook 

(HFH) and RFM/POH. 

F. Removal of Legacy Dates 

SFAR No. 73 contains three longexpired compliance dates for ground 

training in paragraphs 2(a)(1), 2(a)(2), 

and 2(a)(4). Since the ground training 

requirements outlined in these 

paragraphs now apply to all pilots and 

operators of R–22 and R–44 helicopters, 

the FAA proposes to remove those 

expired dates that are no longer 

applicable. 

G. Add Persons Who Seek To Provide 

Ground Training or Flight Training or 

Conduct a Flight Review to Applicability 

Section 

The FAA also proposes to amend the 

applicability section of SFAR No. 73 

(Section 1) to include persons who 

provide ground or flight training or 

conduct a flight review in R–22 or R– 

44 helicopters. While paragraph 2(b)(5) 

contains requirements for persons who 

provide flight training or conduct a 

flight review, the Applicability section 

of SFAR No. 73 does not identify 

authorized flight instructors as persons 

to whom the rule applies. For the 

purposes of clarity and consistency, the 

FAA, therefore, proposes to modify 

Section 1 by adding persons who seek 

to provide ground training or flight 

training or conduct a flight review in a 

Robinson model R–22 or R–44 

helicopter. 

H. Revise Term Blade Stall 

Low rotor RPM (blade stall) is 

identified as a ground training topic in 

SFAR No. 73, paragraph 2(a)(3)(iii). This 

ground training topic places blade stall 

in parentheticals. This formatting leads 

the reader to believe that low rotor RPM 

and blade stall are synonymous. 

However, they are different topics; low 

RPM is the onset of the emergency, and 

stall is the state at which the aircraft 

becomes unrecoverable. Low rotor RPM 

is recoverable if identified early and 

immediately corrected. If this flight 

condition is not rectified and the rotor 

RPM continues to trend lower, blade 

stall may occur. Blade stall is a fatal 

condition where the rotor RPM is not 

recoverable. 

Furthermore, the term blade stall can 

be confused with retreating blade stall, 

which occurs at high forward speeds 

and has its own unique emergency/ 

hazard situation. Rotor stall can occur at 

any airspeed, and the rotor quickly 

stops producing enough lift to support 

the helicopter, causing it to lose lift and 

descend rapidly. 

Changing the term blade stall to rotor 

stall would more accurately capture a 

consequence of low rotor RPM. 

Removing the parentheticals and 

labeling this ground topic as low rotor 

RPM and rotor stall would also better 

align SFAR No. 73 terminology with the 

HFH. As the terms are not synonymous 

and ground training currently must 

cover each independent topic, this 

proposed change is not substantive and 

would not expand the requirements set 

forth in SFAR No. 73. 

I. Revise Term Certified and Certificated 

for Flight Instructors 

This NPRM proposes to remove 

‘‘certified’’ and ‘‘certificated’’ from areas 

in this SFAR that reference flight 

instructors to align with part 61 

definition of flight instructor and 

provide consistency. This SFAR would 

instead use the term ‘‘flight instructor’’ 

and identify the authorization 

requirement established in SFAR No. 

73, paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) where 

appropriate throughout the SFAR. The 

flight instructor requirements outlined 

in SFAR No. 73, paragraph 2(b)(5) 

establish the aeronautical experience, 

training requirements, and 

demonstration of skills to receive 

authorization to perform ground and 

flight training identified in this rule. 

This authorization is documented by the 

issuance of an endorsement from an 

FAA aviation safety inspector or 

authorized designated pilot examiner. 

J. R–22/R–44 Awareness Training 

Endorsement 

Flight instructors and pilots have 

misinterpreted the ground training 

endorsement identified in SFAR No. 73, 

paragraphs 2(a)(1) and 2(a)(2) to be 

aircraft make and model specific.26

However, the ground training on the 

general subject areas listed in paragraph 

2(a)(3) is given to increase awareness for 

the operation of both R–22 and R–44 

models and is not unique to either 

model. They have the same subject 

content, technical detail, and recovery 

techniques for both the Robinson model 

R–22 and R–44 helicopters. A person 

would receive model specific training 

during the flight training listed in SFAR 

No. 73, paragraph 2(b), Aeronautical 

Experience. Because the ground training 

covers general subject areas, the 

endorsement may be written to cover 

both aircraft. The FAA proposes to add 

a new paragraph to paragraph (a) 

clarifying that the ground training 

endorsement is intended to cover both 

Robinson model R–22 and R–44 

helicopters.27


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
71514 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

K. Add Expiration Date to SFAR No. 73 

SFAR No. 73 became effective on June 

29, 2009, and does not have an 

expiration date. The proposed revision 

would add a five-year expiration date 

that starts on the effective date of a final 

rule adopting this notice of proposed 

rulemaking. Adding an expiration date 

to this SFAR would provide a timeframe 

for an assessment of how to move its R– 

22 and R–44 requirements for ground 

training, aeronautical experience, flight 

training, and flight reviews to a 

permanent location in a subchapter of 

14 CFR, chapter 1. 

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Federal agencies consider impacts of 

regulatory actions under a variety of 

executive orders and other 

requirements. First, Executive Order 

12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct 

that each Federal agency shall propose 

or adopt a regulation only upon a 

reasoned determination that the benefits 

of the intended regulation justify the 

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. 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 that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year. The current threshold after 

adjustment for inflation is $177 million 

using the most current (2022) Implicit 

Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic 

Product. 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined that this proposed rule: 

(1) will result in benefits that justify 

costs; (2) is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined in section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866; (3) is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policy and Procedures; (4) 

will not 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. 

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

This proposal would remove a flight 

training requirement from SFAR No. 73 

that cannot be currently performed in 

the aircraft because it is inconsistent 

with Airworthiness Directives (ADs) 

related to Robinson R–22 and R–44. It 

is current practice not to perform the 

flight training maneuver 

notwithstanding the regulatory 

requirement in the SFAR; therefore, the 

proposed change imposes no new cost. 

The FAA expects the proposal to 

promote safety without imposing costs 

by clarifying requirements, eliminating 

inconsistencies, and updating language. 

The proposal is needed to resolve a 

contradiction between SFAR No. 73, 

which requires low G maneuvers during 

flight training for Robinson R–22 and R– 

44 helicopters, and subsequent ADs that 

prohibit low G cyclic pushover 

maneuvers in these aircraft. The FAA 

originally promulgated SFAR No. 73 in 

1995 in response to a series of fatal 

accidents attributed to pilot 

inexperience resulting in main rotor and 

airframe contact. To address these safety 

concerns, SFAR No. 73 established 

special awareness training, aeronautical 

experience, endorsement, and flight 

review requirements for pilots operating 

Robinson R–22 and R–44 helicopters. 

However, within months, the FAA 

issued ADs requiring insertion of 

limitations in the rotorcraft flight 

manual and aircraft placards prohibiting 

low G cyclic pushover maneuvers. The 

proposal would remove the requirement 

for low G maneuvers during in-flight 

training from SFAR No. 73 while 

continuing ground training related to 

low G conditions and proper recovery 

procedures. The proposal would make 

other conforming changes to improve 

clarity and consistency without creating 

new information collections or requiring 

immediate changes to current industry 

or FAA publications and documents. 

Based on this information, the FAA 

has determined that the proposal would 

have minimal economic effects and pose 

no novel or legal policy issues. 

Therefore, the FAA has determined that 

this proposal is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined by DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 601–612), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. 

L. 104–121) and the Small Business Jobs 

Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–240,), requires 

Federal agencies to consider the effects 

of the regulatory action on small 

business and other small entities and to 

minimize any significant economic 

impact. The term ‘‘small entities’’ 

comprises small businesses and not-forprofit organizations that are 

independently owned and operated and 

are not dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

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 rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the 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 with 

a reasoned explanation. 

The FAA expects the proposal to have 

a minimal economic impact on small 

entities. The proposal applies most 

directly to providers of training for 

Robinson R22 and R44 helicopters. 

Some of these training providers are 

small entities. However, the proposal 

does not impose new burdens. The 

proposal would align SFAR No. 73 with 

current practice and Airworthiness 

Directives (ADs) related to Robinson R– 

22 and R–44 helicopter training 

requirements. Total training hours 

remain the same. The proposal would 

also update language and make other 

conforming changes to improve clarity 

and consistency regarding training for 

Robinson R–22 and R–44 helicopters 

without imposing new recordkeeping or 

other requirements. 

If an agency determines that a 

rulemaking will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

head of the agency may so certify under 

section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, the 

FAA proposes to certify that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The FAA welcomes comments 

on the basis of this certification. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 71515 

28 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000). 

29FAA Order No. 1210.20 (Jan. 28, 2004), 

available at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/ 

media/1210.pdf. 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. 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 the proposal responds 

to a domestic safety objective. The FAA 

has determined that this proposed rule 

is not considered an unnecessary 

obstacle to trade. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs 

the issuance of Federal regulations that 

require unfunded mandates. An 

unfunded mandate is a regulation that 

requires a State, local, or tribal 

government or the private sector to 

incur direct costs without the Federal 

government having first provided the 

funds to pay those costs. The FAA 

determined that the proposed rule will 

not result in the expenditure of $177 

million or more by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector, in any one year. This 

proposed rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA has determined that there would 

be no new requirement for information 

collection associated with this proposed 

rule. 

F. 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 determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these proposed 

regulations. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 5–6.6f for regulations and 

involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

VI. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

FAA has determined that this action 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, or the relationship 

between the Federal 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. 

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Consistent with Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments,28 and 

FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian 

and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation 

Policy and Procedures,29 the FAA 

ensures that Federally Recognized 

Tribes (Tribes) are given the opportunity 

to provide meaningful and timely input 

regarding proposed Federal actions that 

have the potential to affect uniquely or 

significantly their respective Tribes. At 

this point, the FAA has not identified 

any unique or significant effects, 

environmental or otherwise, on tribes 

resulting from this proposed rule. 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. The FAA has 

determined that it would not be a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and would not be likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609 and has determined that 

this action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

VII. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The FAA also invites 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. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

commenters should submit only one 

time if comments are filed 

electronically, or commenters should 

send only one copy of written 

comments if comments are filed in 

writing. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on this proposal, the FAA will consider 

all comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The FAA 

will consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. The FAA may change 

this proposal in light of the comments 

it receives. 

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 

public to better inform its rulemaking 

process. DOT posts these comments, 

without edit, including any personal 

information the commenter provides, to 

https://www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can 

be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/ 

privacy. 

B. Confidential Business Information 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) is commercial or financial 

information that is both customarily and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
71516 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

actually treated as private by its owner. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt 

from public disclosure. If your 

comments responsive to this NPRM 

contain commercial or financial 

information that is customarily treated 

as private, that you actually treat as 

private, and that is relevant or 

responsive to this NPRM, it is important 

that you clearly designate the submitted 

comments as CBI. Please mark each 

page of your submission containing CBI 

as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such 

marked submissions as confidential 

under the FOIA, and they will not be 

placed in the public docket of this 

NPRM. Submissions containing CBI 

should be sent to the person in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this document. Any commentary that 

the FAA receives that is not specifically 

designated as CBI will be placed in the 

public docket for this rulemaking. 

C. Electronic Access and Filing 

A copy of this NPRM, all comments 

received, any final rule, and all 

background material may be viewed 

online at https://www.regulations.gov 

using the docket number listed above. A 

copy of this proposed rule will be 

placed in the docket. Electronic retrieval 

help and guidelines are available on the 

website. It is available 24 hours each 

day, 365 days each year. An electronic 

copy of this document may also be 

downloaded from the Office of the 

Federal Register’s website at https:// 

www.federalregister.gov and the 

Government Publishing Office’s website 

at https://www.govinfo.gov. A copy may 

also be found on the FAA’s Regulations 

and Policies website at https:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies. 

Copies may also be obtained 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) 267–9677. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed in 

the electronic docket for this 

rulemaking. 

D. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires the FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document may contact its local 

FAA official or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the internet, visit https://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 61 

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, 

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(f), 106(g), 40113, 

44701–44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 44729, 

44903, 45102–45103, 45301–45302. 

■ 2. Revise Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 73 to read as follows: 

Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

No. 73—Robinson Helicopter Company, 

Robinson R–22/R–44 Special Training 

and Experience Requirements 

Sections 

1. Applicability. 

2. Required training, aeronautical 

experience, endorsements, and 

flight review. 

3. Expiration date. 

1. Applicability. Under the procedures 

prescribed herein, this SFAR applies to 

all persons who seek to manipulate the 

controls, act as pilot in command, 

provide ground training or flight 

training, or conduct a flight review in a 

Robinson model R–22 or R–44 

helicopter. The requirements stated in 

this SFAR are in addition to the current 

requirements of part 61. 

2. Required training, aeronautical 

experience, endorsements, and flight 

review. 

(a) Ground Training: 

(1) Except as provided in paragraph 

2(a)(2) of this SFAR, no person may 

manipulate the controls of a Robinson 

model R–22 or R–44 helicopter for the 

purpose of flight unless the ground 

training specified in paragraph 2(a)(3) of 

this SFAR is completed and the person’s 

logbook has been endorsed by a flight 

instructor authorized under paragraph 

2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR. 

(2) A person who holds a rotorcraft 

category and helicopter class rating on 

that person’s pilot certificate and meets 

the experience requirements of 

paragraph (b)(1) or paragraph 2(b)(2) of 

this SFAR may not manipulate the 

controls of a Robinson model R–22 or 

R–44 helicopter for the purpose of flight 

unless the ground training specified in 

paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR is 

completed and the person’s logbook has 

been endorsed by a flight instructor 

authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) 

of this SFAR. 

(3) Ground training must be 

conducted by a flight instructor who has 

been authorized under paragraph 

2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR and consists of 

instruction in the following general 

subject areas: 

(i) Energy management; 

(ii) Mast bumping; 

(iii) Low rotor RPM and rotor stall; 

(iv) Low G conditions, effects, and 

proper recovery procedures; and 

(v) Rotor RPM decay. 

(4) The general subject areas 

identified in paragraph 2(a)(3) of this 

SFAR are intended to cover both 

Robinson model R–22 and R–44 

helicopters. 

(5) A person who can show 

satisfactory completion of the 

manufacturer’s safety course may obtain 

an endorsement from an FAA aviation 

safety inspector in lieu of completing 

the ground training required by 

paragraphs 2(a)(1) and 2(a)(2) of this 

SFAR. 

(b) Aeronautical Experience. 

(1) No person may act as pilot in 

command of a Robinson model R–22 

unless that person: 

(i) Has logged at least 200 flight hours 

in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of 

which were in the Robinson R–22; or 

(ii) Has logged at least 10 hours of 

flight training in the Robinson R–22 and 

has received an endorsement from a 

flight instructor authorized under 

paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR that 

the individual has been given the 

training required by this paragraph and 

is proficient to act as pilot in command 

of an R–22. The flight training must 

include at least the following abnormal 

and emergency procedures: 

(A) Training in autorotation 

procedures and energy management, 

including utilizing a combination of 

flight control inputs and maneuvering to 

prevent overshooting or undershooting 

the selected landing area from an entry 

altitude that permits safe recovery; 

(B) Autorotations at an entry altitude 

that permits safe maneuvering and 

recovery utilizing maximum glide 

configuration; 

(C) Engine rotor RPM control without 

the use of the governor; and 

(D) Low rotor RPM recognition and 

recovery. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 71517 

(iii) Pilots who do not meet the 

experience requirement of paragraph 

2(b)(1)(i) of this SFAR may not act as 

pilot in command of a Robinson R–22 

beginning 12 calendar months after the 

date of the endorsement identified in 

paragraph 2(b)(1)(ii) of this SFAR until 

those pilots have: 

(A) Completed a flight review of the 

ground training subject areas identified 

by paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR and 

the flight training identified in 

paragraph 2(b)(1)(ii) of this SFAR in an 

R–22; and 

(B) Obtained an endorsement for that 

flight review from a flight instructor 

authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) 

of this SFAR. 

(2) No person may act as pilot in 

command of a Robinson R–44 unless 

that person— 

(i) Has logged at least 200 flight hours 

in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of 

which were in the Robinson R–44. The 

pilot in command may credit up to 25 

flight hours in the Robinson R–22 

toward the 50-hour requirement in the 

Robinson R–44; or 

(ii) Has logged at least 10 hours of 

flight training in a Robinson helicopter, 

at least 5 hours of which must have 

been accomplished in the Robinson R– 

44 helicopter, and has received an 

endorsement from a flight instructor 

authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) 

of this SFAR, that the individual has 

been given the training required by this 

paragraph 2(b)(2)(ii) and is proficient to 

act as pilot in command of an R–44. The 

flight training must include at least the 

following abnormal and emergency 

procedures— 

(A) Training in autorotation 

procedures and energy management, 

including utilizing a combination of 

flight control inputs and maneuvering to 

prevent overshooting or undershooting 

the selected landing area from an entry 

altitude that permits safe recovery; 

(B) Autorotations at an entry altitude 

that permits safe maneuvering and 

recovery utilizing minimum rate of 

descent configuration and maximum 

glide configuration; 

(C) Engine rotor RPM control without 

the use of the governor; and 

(D) Low rotor RPM recognition and 

recovery. 

(iii) Pilots who do not meet the 

experience requirement of paragraph 

2(b)(2)(i) of this SFAR may not act as 

pilot in command of a Robinson R–44 

beginning 12 calendar months after the 

date of the endorsement identified in 

paragraph 2(b)(2)(ii) of this SFAR until 

those pilots have: 

(A) Completed a flight review of the 

ground training subject areas identified 

by paragraph 2(a)(3) and the flight 

training identified in paragraph 

2(b)(2)(ii) of this SFAR in an R–44; and 

(B) Obtained an endorsement for that 

flight review from a flight instructor 

authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) 

of this SFAR. 

(3) A person who does not hold a 

rotorcraft category and helicopter class 

rating must have logged at least 20 

hours of flight training in a Robinson R– 

22 helicopter from a flight instructor 

authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) 

of this SFAR prior to operating it in solo 

flight. In addition, the person must 

obtain an endorsement, from a flight 

instructor authorized under paragraph 

2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR, that training 

has been given in those maneuvers and 

procedures, and the instructor has 

found the applicant proficient to solo a 

Robinson R–22. This endorsement is 

valid for a period of 90 days. The flight 

training must include at least the 

following abnormal and emergency 

procedures: 

(i) Training in autorotation 

procedures and energy management, 

including utilizing a combination of 

flight control inputs and maneuvering to 

prevent overshooting or undershooting 

the selected landing area from an entry 

altitude that permits safe recovery; 

(ii) Autorotations at an entry altitude 

that permits safe maneuvering and 

recovery utilizing maximum glide 

configuration; 

(iii) Engine rotor RPM control without 

the use of the governor; and 

(iv) Low rotor RPM recognition and 

recovery. 

(4) A person who does not hold a 

rotorcraft category and helicopter class 

rating must have logged at least 20 

hours of flight training in a Robinson R– 

44 helicopter from a flight instructor 

authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) 

of this SFAR prior to operating it in solo 

flight. In addition, the person must 

obtain an endorsement, from a flight 

instructor authorized under paragraph 

2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR, that training 

has been given in those maneuvers and 

procedures, and the instructor has 

found the applicant proficient to solo a 

Robinson R–44. This endorsement is 

valid for a period of 90 days. The flight 

training must include at least the 

following abnormal and emergency 

procedures: 

(i) Training in autorotation 

procedures and energy management, 

including utilizing a combination of 

flight control inputs and maneuvering to 

prevent overshooting or undershooting 

the selected landing area from an entry 

altitude that permits safe recovery; 

(ii) Autorotations at an entry altitude 

that permits safe maneuvering and 

recovery utilizing minimum rate of 

descent configuration and maximum 

glide configuration; 

(iii) Engine rotor RPM control without 

the use of the governor and 

(iv) Low rotor RPM recognition and 

recovery. 

(5) No flight instructor may provide 

training or conduct a flight review in a 

Robinson R–22 or R–44 unless that 

instructor— 

(i) Completes the ground training in 

paragraph 2(a) of this SFAR. 

(ii) For the Robinson R–22, has logged 

at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, 

at least 50 flight hours of which were in 

the Robinson R–22, or for the Robinson 

R–44, logged at least 200 flight hours in 

helicopters, 50 flight hours of which 

were in Robinson helicopters. Up to 25 

flight hours of Robinson R–22 flight 

time may be credited toward the 50- 

hour requirement. 

(iii) Has completed flight training in 

a Robinson R–22, R–44, or both, on the 

following abnormal and emergency 

procedures— 

(A) Training in autorotation 

procedures and energy management, 

including utilizing a combination of 

flight control inputs and maneuvering to 

prevent overshooting or undershooting 

the selected landing area from an entry 

altitude that permits safe recovery; 

(B) For the Robinson R–22, 

autorotations at an entry altitude that 

permits safe maneuvering and recovery 

utilizing maximum glide configuration. 

For the Robinson R–44, autorotations at 

an entry altitude that permits safe 

maneuvering and recovery utilizing 

maximum glide configuration and 

minimum rate of descent configuration; 

(C) Engine rotor RPM control without 

the use of the governor; and 

(D) Low rotor RPM recognition and 

recovery. 

(iv) Has been authorized by 

endorsement from an FAA aviation 

safety inspector or authorized 

designated examiner that the instructor 

has completed the appropriate training, 

meets the experience requirements, and 

has satisfactorily demonstrated an 

ability to provide training on the general 

subject areas of paragraph 2(a)(3) of this 

SFAR, and the flight training identified 

in paragraph 2(b)(5)(iii) of this SFAR. 

(c) Flight Review: 

(1) No flight review completed to 

satisfy § 61.56 by an individual after 

becoming eligible to function as pilot in 

command in a Robinson R–22 

helicopter shall be valid for the 

operation of an R–22 helicopter unless 

that flight review was taken in an R–22. 

(2) No flight review completed to 

satisfy § 61.56 by an individual after 

becoming eligible to function as pilot in 

command in a Robinson R–44 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
71518 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). 

2 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018). 

3 83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018). The SIP 

Requirements Rule addresses a range of 

nonattainment area SIP requirements for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS, including requirements pertaining 

to attainment demonstrations, reasonable further 

progress (RFP), reasonably available control 

technology, reasonably available control measures, 

major new source review, emission inventories, and 

the timing of SIP submissions and of compliance 

with emission control measures in the SIP. 

helicopter shall be valid for the 

operation of an R–44 helicopter unless 

that flight review was taken in the R–44. 

(3) The flight review will include a 

review of the ground training subject 

areas of paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR 

and flight training in abnormal and 

emergency procedures, in the Robinson 

R–22 or R–44 helicopter, as appropriate, 

identified in paragraph 2(b) of this 

SFAR. 

(d) Currency Requirements: No person 

may act as pilot in command of a 

Robinson model R–22 or R–44 

helicopter carrying passengers unless 

the pilot in command has met the 

recency of flight experience 

requirements of § 61.57 in an R–22 or R– 

44, as appropriate. 

3. Expiration date. This SFAR No. 73 

expires [DATE FIVE YEARS AFTER 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL 

RULE] unless sooner revised or 

rescinded. 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in 

Washington, DC. 

Wesley L. Mooty, 

Acting Deputy Executive, Flight Standards 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–22634 Filed 10–16–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0422; FRL–11353– 

01–R9] 

Air Plan Revisions; California; Butte 

County Air Quality Management 

District; Nonattainment New Source 

Review Requirements for the 2015 

8-Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

California addressing the nonattainment 

new source review (NNSR) 

requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS or ‘‘standard’’). This SIP 

revision addresses the Butte County Air 

Quality Management District 

(‘‘District’’) portion of the California SIP. 

This action is being taken pursuant to 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) and 

its implementing regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 16, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2023–0422 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shaheerah Kelly, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street (AIR–3–2), San 

Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 

947–4156 or by email at 

kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. The State’s Submittal 

A. What did the State submit? 

B. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

III. Analysis of Nonattainment New Source 

Review Requirements 

IV. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On October 26, 2015, the EPA 

promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS of 0.070 parts per million 

(ppm).1 Upon promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the 

EPA to designate as nonattainment any 

area that is violating the NAAQS based 

on the three most recent years of 

ambient air quality data. Butte County 

was classified as a ‘‘Marginal’’ ozone 

nonattainment area.2

On December 6, 2018, the EPA issued 

a final rule entitled, ‘‘Implementation of 

the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment 

Area State Implementation Plan 

Requirements’’ (‘‘SIP Requirements 

Rule’’), which establishes the 

requirements and deadlines that state, 

tribal, and local air quality management 

agencies must meet as they develop 

implementation plans for areas where 

ozone concentrations exceed the 2015 

ozone NAAQS.3 Based on the initial 

nonattainment designation for the 2015 

ozone standard, the District was 

required to make a SIP revision 

addressing NNSR no later than August 

3, 2021. See 40 CFR 51.1314. This 

requirement may be met by submitting 

a SIP revision consisting of a new or 

revised NNSR permit program. 

II. The State’s Submittal 

A. What did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the dates the submitted 

rule addressed by this proposal was 

amended by the District and submitted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB), the agency that serves as the 

governor’s designee for California SIP 

submittals. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1