62486 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 61

[Docket No. 28095; SFAR No. 73–1; Notice

No. 97–15]

RIN 2120–AG47

Robinson R–22/R–44 Special Training

and Experience Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

extend the expiration date of Special

Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 73,

and to amend the special training and

experience requirements for pilots

operating the Robinson model R–22 or

R–44 helicopters in order to maintain

the safe operation of Robinson

helicopters. It also proposes special

training and experience requirements

for certified flight instructors

conducting student instruction or flight

reviews. This action is proposed to

maintain awareness of and training for

the potential hazards of particular flight

operations for the continued safe

operation of Robinson helicopters.

DATES: Comments must be received by

December 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted in triplicate to the Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attn: Rules Docket

(AGC–200), Docket No. 28095, 800

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert J. O’Haver, Operations Branch,

AFS–820, General Aviation and

Commercial Division, 800

Independence Ave. SW., Washington,

DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267–7031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

All interested persons are invited to

comment on this proposed rule by

submitting such written data, views, or

arguments as they may desire, including

comments relating to the environmental,

energy, or economic impacts.

Communications should identify the

regulatory docket number, and be

submitted in triplicate to the Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attn: Rules Docket

(AGC–200), Docket No. 28095, 800

Independence Ave., Washington, DC

20591. Comments may also be sent

electronically to the Rules Docket by

using the following Internet address: 9-

nprm-cmts@faa.dot.gov. All

communications received will be

considered by the Administrator. This

proposed rule may be changed as a

result of comments received from the

public. All comments submitted will be

available for examination in the Rules

Docket in Room 915–G of the FAA

Building, 800 Independence Ave.,

Washington, DC 20591. Persons wishing

to have the FAA acknowledge receipt of

their comments must submit a selfaddressed, stamped postcard with the

following statement: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 28095.’’ The postcard

will then be dated, time stamped, and

returned by the FAA.

Availability of This Proposed Rule

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded, using a modem

and suitable communications software,

from the FAA regulations section of the

Fedworld electronic bulletin board

service ((703) 321–3339), the Federal

Register’s electronic bulletin board

service ((202 512–1661), or the FAA’s

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory

Committee Bulletin Board service ((800)

322–2722 or (202) 267–5948). Internet

users may reach the FAA’s web page at

http://www.faa.gov or the Federal

Register’s web page at http://

www.access.gpo.gov/suldocs for

access to recently published rulemaking

documents.

Any person may obtain a copy of this

document by submitting a request to the

Federal Aviation Administration, Office

of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800

Independence Ave., SW, Washington,

DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267–9677.

Communications must identify the

docket number of this proposal.

Persons interested in being placed on

the mailing list for future rules should

request from the above office a copy of

Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking Distribution

System, which describes the application

procedure.

Background

Part 61 of Title 14 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 61)

details the certification requirements for

pilots and flight instructions. Particular

requirements for pilots and flight

instructors in rotorcraft are found in

Subparts C through G, and Appendix B

of part 61. These requirements do not

address any specific type or model of

rotorcraft. However, the FAA

determined in 1995 that specific

training and experience requirements

are necessary for the safe operation of

Robinson R–22 and R–44 model

helicopters.

The R–22 is a 2-seat, reciprocating

engine-powered helicopter that is

frequently used as low–cost initial

student training aircraft. The R–44 is a

4-seat helicopter with similar operating

characteristics and design features of the

R–22. The R–22 is the smallest

helicopter in its class and incorporates

a unique cyclic control and rotor

system. Certain aerodynamic and design

features of the aircraft cause specific

flight characteristics that require

particular pilot awareness and

responsiveness.

Since the R–22 was certificated, there

have been 339 accidents in the U.S.

involving R–22’s. The FAA found that

the R–22 met 14 CFR part 27

certification requirements and issued a

type certificate in 1979; however, the R–

22 has had a high number of fatal

accidents due to main rotor/airframe

contact when compared to other piston

powered helicopters. Many of these

accidents have been attributed to pilot

performance or inexperience, leading to

low rotor revolutions per minute (RPM)

or low ‘‘G’’ conditions that resulted in

most bumping or main rotor-airframe

contact accidents. Its small size and

relatively low operating costs result in

its use as a training or small utility

aircraft, and its operation by a

significant population of relatively

inexperienced helicopter pilots.

In its analysis of accident data, the

FAA has found that apparently qualified

pilots may not be properly prepared to

safely operate the R–22 and R–44

helicopters in certain flight conditions.

The additional pilot training, originally

established by SFAR 73, continues to be

needed for the safe operation of these

helicopters.

Previous Regulatory Action

To address the accident causes, on

March 1, 1995, the FAA published

SFAR 73 (60 FR 11256) which required

certain experience and training to

perform pilot-in-command (PIC) and/or

certified flight instructor (CFI) duties.

SFAR 73 was issued on an emergency

basis without the usual public notice

and comment; however, the FAA sought

comment on the SFAR.

SFAR 73 will expire on December 31,

1997. Since its issuance, no accidents

have occurred related to the low rotor

RPM and/or tailboom/main rotor

contact. Therefore, the FAA is

proposing to extend, with a minor

amendment, the provisions of SFAR 73.

Comments on SFAR 73

Forty-six comments were received on

SFAR 73 from various individuals,

associations and businesses. These are

discussed by topic below. One comment
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules 62487

received from Helicopter Association

International was rescinded at their

request, and was later amended and

replaced by them. One comment

received made reference to the potential

noise problem of low flying helicopters;

this comment had no relevance to the

SFAR and is therefore considered to be

outside the scope of the request for

comment.

Twenty-one comments received in the

docket supported the SFAR. One

commenter expressed approval of the

SFAR as an interim measure while

engineering studies are completed. Two

commenters suggested the SFAR was

deficient or weak. Two commenters

disagreed with the SFAR, stating that it

was unnecessary or that they disagreed

with the intent. The remaining

commenters stated general support for

the SFAR.

Scope of the SFAR

Some commenters recommended

removing the reference to Robinson

helicopters, and/or stating that SFAR,

particularly in the area of awareness

training, should apply to all helicopters,

not only Robinson helicopters.

However, five comments were received

refuting this position stating that the

SFAR should apply only to Robinson

helicopters; in addition, they suggested

the intent of the FAA was to apply the

SFAR across the board for all light

helicopters.

FAA Response: It was the FAA’s

intent that SFAR 73 apply only to

Robinson Helicopters in that the R–22

and R–44 are the only U.S.

manufactured, light helicopters utilizing

a two blade teetering rotor system,

combined with a high tail rotor mount

position that has a history of this

common type of accident. Therefore, the

SFAR is directed to the Robinson

helicopter models R–22 and R–44.

Awareness Training

One commenter noted that awareness

training was not appropriate for

beginning students and should not be

required until just prior to solo and after

10 hours of dual instruction.

FAA Response: The FAA disagrees

with this comment. Awareness training

for helicopter operations should begin

with the first flight. Students should be

made aware from the outset of training

of the hazards of abrupt control

movements, rapid or abnormal control

inputs, and the recognition of potential

problems encountered in normal

operations which could lead to an

emergency. Such training is appropriate

at all levels of proficiency, while the

technical details surrounding such

information increases in complexity and

detail as understanding and experience

increases.

Additionally, the subject matter of the

training required by the SFAR

pertaining to low ‘‘G’’ maneuvers, rotor

RPM control, and the dangers of mast

bumping applies to all helicopters.

Therefore, the FAA has made significant

and permanent changes to various

advisory material publications (e.g.

practical test standards) as well as

standards for certification.

Required Experience and Training

Eight comments were received with

regard to newly certificated flight

instructors who had completed all, or

the majority of their training in the

Robinson helicopter. The commentors

stated that those instructors who had

received all their training in the R–22,

even though they had a minimum time

of 150 hours, should be authorized to

conduct training (or continue to do so)

in Robinson helicopters, if properly

authorized and endorsed.

FAA Response: The FAA disagrees

with this comment. While it is true that

some newly certificated flight

instructors who meet the minimum

experience requirements established for

certification may be eminently qualified

to teach others, there are others whose

skills may only meet minimum

performance standards. Some who

aspire to be flight instructors can and do

occasionally acquire a flight instructor’s

certificate with as little as 50 hours of

actual rotorcraft time, and little more

than 150 hours of total flight time. The

accidents that precipitated the issuance

of SFAR 73 were attributed to pilot

performance or experience, leading to

low rotor RPM or low ‘‘G’’ conditions

that resulted in mast bumping or mainrotor/airframe contact accidents. In its

analysis of accident data, the FAA has

found that apparently qualified pilots

may not be properly prepared to operate

safely the R–22 and R–44 helicopters in

certain flight conditions. As was stated

in the preamble to SFAR 73, there is a

clear relationship between pilot

inexperience in the R–22 and R–44

helicopters and main-rotor/airframe

contact accidents. In 23 of the 30 fatal

accidents, the pilot apparently

manipulating the controls has less than

200 flight hours in helicopters or less

than 50 flight hours in the model of

Robinson helicopter they were

operating.

Creditable Training

Robinson Helicopter Company (RHC)

and 15 additional commentors provided

support for a RHC proposal to allow a

reduction in the hours of dual

instruction required by paragraphs

2(b)(1)(ii) and 2(b)(2)(ii) from 10 hours

to 5 hours for those persons who had an

experience level of more than 200 flight

hours in helicopters.

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with

this comment and incorporated it into

this proposal. SFAR 73 was originally

written to provide for adequate training

of instructional and evaluator cadre by

separating the two models of aircraft (R–

22 and R–44), noting that the model R–

44 had, at that point, not been marketed

in the United States. At that time, it was

determined that 10 hours of dual

instruction in each model would

accomplish the goal of those who had

been trained exclusively in one model

of Robinson helicopter, the R–22 for

United States pilots, and the Model R–

44 for foreign operators. The 10 hour

requirement could have been fulfilled

by any dual flight instruction acquired

in the appropriate model of aircraft over

any period of time. The stipulation was

that some dual flight instruction would

entail the specific training provisions of

the SFAR.

Since the R–44 is now being marketed

in the United States, the training now

entails transition or differences training,

rather than initial training. The

instruction provisions that applied to

the model R–22, along with the acquired

experience in that model of aircraft have

provided a suitable increase in

operational skills for pilots of the

smaller aircraft which are applicable to

the larger model R–44 aircraft.

For these reasons, the FAA

determined that the safety aspects of the

SFAR as they apply to flight experience

in the model R–22 should be credited

toward the flight experience

requirements in the R–44.

The Proposed Amendment

Prior to the issuance of SFAR 73,

there had been 339 accidents involving

the Robinson R–22 helicopters. Many of

these accidents were related to the

hazardous condition encountered in low

‘‘G’’ maneuvers resulting in main-rotor/

tailboom contact. The situation was so

serious that on March 1, 1995, the FAA

took corrective action and published

SFAR 73 setting out specific training

and experience requirements to perform

PIC or CFI duties in the R–22 or R–44

Robinson helicopters.

Since the issuance of SFAR 73, there

has been a dramatic drop in the accident

rate of Robinson helicopters associated

with low ‘‘G’’ maneuvers or main rotor/

tailboom contact. Also in the interim,

the FAA has taken steps to improve the

airworthiness of the R–22 and R–44

through the issuance of a number of

airworthiness directives.
62488 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules

With this remarkable decline in the

accident rate, the FAA is proposing to

extend the provisions of SFAR 73. As a

result of the comments received on

SFAR 73, there is a general consensus

that the training is beneficial to those

operating Robinson helicopters.

Recognizing that there is a constant

recurrence of training requirements to

meet the ongoing influx of new rotary

wing pilots, the FAA believes there is

benefit to continuing the requirements

of SFAR 73.

This proposal also provides a minor

amendment to the previous provisions

of SFAR 73 to clarify paragraph 2(b)(5)

regarding the instructor experience

required to conduct training in either

the R–22 or R–44. The FAA has

recognized that the R–44, which wasn’t

operated in the U.S. in large numbers

when SFAR 73 was originally

promulgated, is being operated in

greater numbers now. The FAA has also

recognized that the R–44 is a more

stable aircraft than the R–22. Therefore,

the FAA is proposing to allow the

crediting of up to 25 flight hours

acquired in the model R–22 helicopter

towards the 50 flight hour experience

requirements of paragraph 2(b)(2)(i) for

the R–44, and up to 5 hours of dual

instruction received in the R–22

credited toward the 10 hour dual flight

instruction requirement of 2(c)(2)(ii) for

R–44.

In addition, paragraph 2(b)(5)(ii) is

clarified in this proposal. The FAA has

received many inquiries as to the intent

of this paragraph. Callers have mistaken

the intent of the paragraph and

concluded upon reading the SFAR, that

instructors may be endorsed to provide

flight instruction in the R–22 or R–44 if

they comply with paragraph 2(b)(1)(ii)

or 2(b)(2)(ii) of the SFAR. They contend

that the reference in paragraph

2(b)(5)(ii) to the experience

requirements of 2(b)(1)(i) or 2(b)(2)(i)

include the ‘‘or,’’ at the end of the

sentence.

This was not the FAA’s intent,

paragraph 2(b)(5)(i) specifically refers to

a numbered line only. The FAA is

proposing a change to paragraph

2(b)(5)(i) to provide clarification.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Proposed changes to Federal

regulations must undergo several

economic analyses. First, Executive

Order 12866 directs that each Federal

agency shall propose or adopt a

regulation only upon a reasoned

determination that the benefits of the

intended regulation justify its costs.

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act

requires agencies to analyze the

economic effect of regulatory changes

on small entities. Third, the Office of

Management and Budget directs

agencies to assess the effect of

regulatory changes on small entities and

changes on international trade. In

conducting these analyses, the FAA has

determined that this proposal. (1) Is

cost-beneficial; (2) is not ‘‘a significant

regulatory action’’ as defined in the

Executive Order, (3) is not significant as

defined in Department of

Transportation’s Regulatory Policies and

Procedures; (4) will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities, and (5) will

not constitute a barrier to international

trade. All of these analyses have been

prepared as a regulatory evaluation and

are summarized below. A copy of the

regulatory evaluation has also been

placed into the docket.

Benefits

The benefits of the proposed rule

would be a reduction of the number of

fatal accidents that occur in Robinson

helicopters associated with low ‘‘G’’

maneuvers that can result in main rotor

contact with the airframe. The estimated

reduction in the number of accidents is

expected from the increased level of

safety related to specific flight training

and awareness training requirements for

all individuals operating Robinson R–22

and R–44 aircraft.

Between the years 1985 and 1994

there were a total of 43 fatal accidents

involving Robinson helicopters,

resulting in 63 fatalities. Accidents due

to main rotor contact with the airframe

accounted for 16 of the 43, or

approximately 37 percent of the total

accidents. There were 26 fatalities that

resulted from those 16 accidents prior to

the issuance of SFAR 73. The 26

fatalities represent 41 percent of all

fatalities on Robinson helicopters prior

to issuance of the SFAR. Since the

SFAR was issued in 1995, however,

there have been no accidents or

fatalities involving R–22 or R–44 aircraft

associated with low ‘‘G’’ operations or

main rotor contact with the airframe.

Although there is not yet sufficient

historical data to statistically

demonstrate that the almost three year

period of no fatal accidents of this type

is a result of SFAR 73, it is the

judgement of the FAA after reviewing

all available information that this is the

case.

Assuming that SFAR 73 is effective at

preventing the above types of rotorcraft

accidents, the FAA has estimated the

benefit associated with preventing these

accidents. A value of $2.7 million was

applied to each statistical fatality

avoided. This computation resulted in

an estimate of approximately $35.1

million in five year casualty costs. Also,

the estimated value of the 16 destroyed

aircraft was $587,000. If this rulemaking

helps prevent the recurrence of the 26

fatalities associated with low ‘’G’’

maneuvers then expected safety benefits

would be approximately $35.7 million

(present value, $29.3 million) over five

years, in 1996 dollars.

Costs

In this analysis, the FAA has

estimated the cost of the proposed rule

over the five year period from 1998

through 2002. All of the costs incurred

as a result of changes to existing

procedures will begin when the

proposed rule becomes effective. Costs

are computed in 1996 dollars and are

discounted by seven percent. The Office

of Management and Budget (OMB)

requires using a discount factor of seven

percent when calculating the present

value.

The groups that incur costs from the

proposed rule are rated pilots who

aspire to be flight instructors or newly

certificated flight instructors who desire

to conduct student instruction or flight

reviews in the Robinson model R–22 or

R–44 helicopter. In addition, students

that receive their instruction in the R–

22 or R–44, such as pilots adding a

rotorcraft rating and new rotorcraft

students, will also incur costs from the

proposed rule. All the cost estimates

pertaining to the acquisition of a

rotorcraft category rating are based on

the minimum times required to receive

the category rating, as published in 14

CFR Part 61.

Flight Instructor Costs

Occasionally a flight instructor can

acquire his or her certificate with as

little as 50 hours of actual rotorcraft

time and little more than 150 hours of

total flight time. However, the SFAR

established criteria for flight instructors

who wish to continue to instruct or

conduct flight reviews in a Robinson

helicopter. The criteria were based on a

combination of experience and training,

which require more than the minimum

amount required for certification as an

instructor. Further, the criteria were

established to ensure that the instructors

are knowledgeable and competent to

conduct the awareness and flight

training the FAA believes are necessary

for Robinson helicopters. Therefore, no

grandfathering was permitted for

evaluators or flight instructors.

While it is still possible for an

individual to obtain a flight instructor

certificate for aircraft other than

Robinson helicopters in the minimum

published time, those aspiring a flight

instructor certificate in the Robinson
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules 62489

model helicopters will require an

additional 50 hours of flight time.

However, because some flight

experience requirements in the model

R–22 also apply to flight experience

requirements in the R–44, a credit of up

to 25 flight hours acquired in the model

R–22 helicopter can apply to the 50

flight hour experience requirement for

the R–44.

For a rated pilot to become

certificated as a flight instructor in the

R–22, the pilot will need an additional

50 flight hours in the R–22, at a cost of

$150 an hour, or $7,500. Likewise, for

a rated pilot to become certificated as a

flight instructor in the R–44, the pilot

will need an additional 50 flight hours

(25 hours credit in the R–22) in the R–

44, at an additional cost of $300 an hour

for 25 hours in a R–44 and $150 an hour

for 25 hours in a R–22, or a total of

$11,250 per person. However, for a

person to become certificated as a flight

instructor on both models of Robinson

helicopters, the pilot will need 75

additional flight hours, 50 hours in the

422 and 25 hours in the R–44. The

added cost for 75 additional flight hours

to become certificated in both the R–22

and the R–44 is $15,000 per person. The

FAA assumes that a rated pilot seeking

to become a flight instructor would

want to be certificated on both models

of Robinson helicopters, therefore the

FAA has based the cost estimate to

become a flight instructor on the 75

additional flight hours.

For several reasons, the FAA believes

that only a small number of potential

flight instructors will be affected by the

proposed rule. First, most certificated

flight instructors have been rated pilots

for some time, and as a consequence,

have far more than the minimum total

flight time. In addition many pilots have

an instrument rating, which requires

significantly more flight experience.

Second, most FAA-approved schools

require flight instructors to have

considerably more experience than the

required minimums to become a flight

instructor.

Finally, the FAA believes that the

number of individuals seeking a new

flight instructor certificate for a specific

Robinson model helicopter is small

relative to the total of new flight

instructor certificates issued. To

estimate the number of people seeking

a flight instructor certificate for the

Robinson model helicopters, the FAA

determined the ratio of rotorcraft-only

certificates held to the total airmen

certificates held (less student and glideronly certificates). The ratio was then

applied to the change in flight instructor

certificates between 1995 and 1996.

These relationships may be summarized

as follows:

Estimate of Rotorcraft only Flight

Instructor Certificates=ΣICt¥ΣICt=1

* Σ RCt/Σ PCt

where:

ICt=instructor certificates held in time

period t;

ICt¥1=instructor certificates held in time

period t=1;

PCt=pilot certificates held in time

period t;

RCt=rotorcraft certificates held in time

period t.

Applying the above formula, the FAA

estimates that in 1996 there was the

potential for 13 individuals to seek a

flight instructor certificate based on the

minimum requirements for a helicopter

only rating. Based on the addition of 75

flight hours at an added cost of $15,000

per individual, the total cost for 13

people seeking a rotorcraft only flight

instructor certificate in a Robinson

helicopter is approximately $189,000

annually. The estimated cost over the

next five years is approximately

$900,000 (present value, $800,000), in

1996 dollars.

Student Costs

The costs encompass two classes of

students: (1) pilots that currently have a

class certificate who wish to add a

rotorcraft rating, and (2) new students

receiving rotorcraft only training.

However, to be included in the cost

estimate, students (new students or

those adding a rotorcraft rating) must be

receiving instruction in the Robinson

model R–22 or R–44 helicopter.

New students receiving instruction in

the Robinson helicopters would be

required to receive an additional 5

hours of dual instruction. Because the

small size, low purchase price, and low

maintenance costs make the R–22

attractive to flight schools, the FAA

assumes that new students will receive

their instruction in the Robinson model

R–22 helicopter. The added cost per

student, assuming $150 an hour for

instruction in the R–22, will amount to

$750 (5 hours times $150 an hour).

Estimation of the total added cost for

all students receiving instruction in the

Robinson helicopter was calculated in

several steps. First, the FAA estimated

the ratio of original rotorcraft certificates

issued to original student certificates

issued. That ratio was applied to the

total student pilot certificates held in

1996, which produced an estimate of

the number of student rotorcraft

certificates held. The student rotorcraft

certificates held was multiplied by an

estimate of the number of new students

receiving instruction on Robinson

helicopters. That estimate was then

applied to the added cost per student to

derive the total added cost for all

students. These relationships may be

summarized as follows:

Total Added Cost for all Students =

{2∗Η∗CR-22*[ΣSPC*Σ(ORI/OSI)]}/3

where:

H = added hours;

C = added cost per hour;

SPC = student pilot certificates held;

OSI = original student certificates

issued;

ORI = original rotorcraft certificates

issued.

Applying the above procedure, the FAA

estimates that approximately 4,000 new

students will receive instruction in the

Robinson R–22 model helicopter at an

estimated cost of approximately $3.0

million annually. The total new student

costs are approximately $14.9 million

($12.2 million, present value) over the

next five years in 1996 dollars.

Pilots that have a current class

certificate who wish to add a rotorcraft

rating and receive instruction in the

Robinson helicopters will be required to

take an additional 5 hours of dual

instruction the same as new students.

However, unlike the new students, the

FAA assumes that a portion of the pilots

seeking to add a rotorcraft rating will

receive instruction in the Robinson

model R–44. Therefore, in addition to

estimating the total number of pilots

seeking to add a rotorcraft rating in

Robinson helicopters in general, the

FAA estimated the percentage of those

seeking a rating only in the R–44.

Experienced pilots who wish to add a

rotorcraft rating to a current class

certificate could receive more advanced

instruction, or instruction in more

advanced equipment, than a new pilot.

For example, they could receive

instruction in a larger, more

sophisticated turbine helicopter, or they

could receive instruction to add the

instrument rating to their class

certificate. To determine the number of

rotorcraft ratings that apply only to the

R–44, the FAA multiplied the ratio of

R–44s to the helicopter fleet by the

added rotorcraft ratings for 1996. To

estimate the added cost of instruction in

the R–44, the number of R–44 ratings

was multiplied by the number of

required added hours of instruction, and

by the R–44 cost per hour. As with the

R–44, the added cost of the R–22 was

estimated by applying the R–22 ratings

to the added rotorcraft ratings for 1996.

The number of R–22 ratings was

multiplied by the number of added

hours of instruction and by the R–22

cost per hour. Finally, the two products

were added together to estimate the
62490 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules

annual cost or pilots to add a rotorcraft

rating using a Robinson helicopter.

These relationships may be

summarized as follows:

Total added cost to add a rotorcraft

rating = ΣARRt*(R44/F)*H*CR44 ∂

ΣARRt*[(R–R–44)/F]*H*CR22

where:

R = U.S. active Robinson fleet;

F = U.S. active helicopter fleet;

R44 = Robinson Model R–44 helicopter;

ARRt = added rotorcraft ratings in time

period t;

H = added hours;

C = added cost per hour.

Applying the above description, the

total additional cost to receive

instruction in a Robinson helicopter for

the purpose of adding a rotorcraft rating

to a pilot certificate is approximately

$448,000 annually. The estimated cost

over the next five years is approximately

$2.2 million (present value, $1.8

million) in 1996 dollars.

Cost Summary

The proposed rule would impose

costs to those receiving instruction in

Robinson model R–22 and R–44

helicopters. Before they could be

certificated, affected individuals would

be required to receive additional modelspecific training and experience for each

model of Robinson helicopter.

Individuals affected by the proposal are

rated pilots who aspire to be flight

instructors or newly certificated flight

instructors who desire to conduct

student instruction or flight reviews in

the Robinson model R–22 and R–44

helicopter, new rotorcraft students, and

certificated pilots seeking to add a

rotorcraft rating. Both the new student

and the pilot seeking to add a rotorcraft

rating must be receiving instruction in

a Robinson helicopter to incur the

added cost. The proposed rule would

impose total estimated costs of

approximately $18.1 million (present

value, $14.8 million) over the next five

years, in 1996 dollars.

All of the costs described in this

analysis would be incurred voluntarily.

These added costs are not being forced

on any individual that wishes to receive

rotorcraft training. If an individual

wishes to avoid the additional costs of

rotorcraft instruction delineated above,

they can receive their instruction in a

rotorcraft other than a Robinson model,

and not incur any of the costs that are

described in this analysis.

Comparison of Costs and Benefits

The proposal would require those

who receive or provide instruction in a

Robinson helicopter to incur additional

costs related to specific flight training

and awareness training. The addition of

those proposed requirements would

impose costs of approximately $18.1

million (present value, $14.8 million)

over five years in 1996 dollars. Benefits

from the proposed rule would be a

reduction in the number of fatal

accidents that occur in Robinson

helicopters associated with low ‘‘G’’

maneuvers that may result in main

rotor/airframe contact. The estimated

reduction in the number of accidents is

due to the increased level of safety due

to specific flight training and awareness

training requirements for all individuals

operating Robinson model R–22 and R–

44 aircraft. If the proposed action

prevents the 26 fatalities that occurred

during the past 10-year period, the

estimated benefits would be $71.4

million ($50.1 million, present value).

Since this SFAR will be in effect for

only 5 years, the estimated benefits

would be $35.7 million ($29.3 million,

present value) for this rulemaking,

resulting in benefits exceeding costs by

a factor of about two.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA), as amended, was enacted by

Congress to ensure that small entities

are not unnecessarily and

disproportionately burdened by

Government regulations. The Act

requires that whenever an agency

publishes a general notice of proposed

rulemaking, an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis identifying the

economic impact on small entities, and

considering alternatives that may lessen

those impacts must be conducted if the

proposed rule would have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

This notice is to extend SFAR 73

published on March 1, 1995, which was

issued on an emergency basis without

the usual public notice period, but the

FAA sought comments after issuance.

No comments were received from small

entities indicating that they would

suffer a significant adverse economic

impact. Further, the SFAR is limited to

experience and training requirements to

perform pilot-in-command and certified

flight instructor duties, thereby

impacting individuals rather than

entities. So in view of the above, the

FAA concluded that this proposed rule,

if extended, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The Agency,

however, invites comments on this

conclusion.

International Trade Impact Statement

This proposed rule is not expected to

impose a competitive disadvantage to

either US air carriers doing business

abroad or foreign air carriers doing

business in the United States. This

assessment is based on the fact that this

proposed rule would impose additional

costs only on those receiving instruction

on Robinson helicopters. This proposal

would have no effect on the sale of

foreign aviation products or services in

the United States, nor would it affect the

sale of United States aviation products

or services in foreign countries.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Assessment

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as

Pub. L. 104–4 on March 22, 1995,

requires each Federal agency, to the

extent permitted by law, to prepare a

written assessment of the effects of any

Federal mandate in a proposed or final

agency rule that may result in the

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any

one year. Section 204(a) of the Act, 2

U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal

agency to develop an effective process

to permit timely input by elected

officers (or their designees) of State,

local, and tribal governments on a

proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental

mandate.’’ A ‘‘significant

intergovernmental mandate’’ under the

Act is any provision in a Federal agency

regulation that would impose an

enforceable duty upon State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, of

$100 million (adjusted annually for

inflation) in any one year. Section 203

of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which

supplements section 204(a), provides

that before establishing any regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, the

agency shall have developed a plan that,

among other things, provides for notice

to potentially affected small

governments, if any, and for a

meaningful and timely opportunity to

provide input in the development of

regulatory proposals.

This rule does not contain any

Federal intergovernmental mandates,

but does contain a private sector

mandate. However, because

expenditures by the private sector will

not exceed $100 million annually, the

requirements of Title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not

apply.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules 62491

Federalism Implications

The SFAR proposed herein will not

have substantial direct effects on the

states, on the relationship between the

Federal government and the states, or on

the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12866,

it is determined that this proposed rule

does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

International Civil Aviation

Organization (ICAO) and Joint Aviation

Regulations

In keeping with U.S. obligations

under the Convention on International

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to

comply with ICAO Standards and

Recommended Practices to the

maximum extent practicable. The FAA

has determined that this proposed rule

does not conflict with any international

agreement of the United States.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The OMB control number assigned to

the collection of information for this

proposed rule is 2120–0021.

Conclusion

For the reasons previously discussed

in the preamble, the FAA has

determined that this SFAR is not

significant under Executive Order

12866. Based on the findings in the

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

and the International Trade Impact

Analysis, the FAA certifies that this

proposed rule will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. This SFAR is not

considered significant under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034; February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 61

Aircraft, Aircraft pilots, Airmen,

Airplanes, Air safety, Air transportation,

Aviation safety, Balloons, Helicopters,

Rotorcraft, Students.

The Proposal

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend part 61 of Title 14

of the Code of Federal Regulations (14

CFR part 61) as follows:

PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS

AND FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS

1. The authority citation for part 61

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–

44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 45102–45103,

45301–45302.

SFAR 73 [Amended]

2. Paragraphs 2(b)(2), 2(b)(5), and 3 of

Special Federal Aviation Regulation

(SFAR) No. 73 to part 61 are revised to

read as follows:

SPECIAL FEDERAL AVIATION

REGULATIONS

* * * * *

SFAR No. 73—ROBINSON R–22/R–44

SPECIAL TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE

REQUIREMENTS

* * * * *

2. Required training, aeronautical

experience, endorsements, and flight review.

(b) * * *

(2) No person may act as pilot in command

of a Robinson model R–44 unless that person:

(i) has had 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 model R–44 toward this 50

hour requirement; or

(ii) has had at least 10 hours dual

instruction in a Robinson helicopter, at least

5 hours of which must have been

accomplished in the Robinson model R–44

helicopter. Beginning 12 calendar months

after the date of the endorsement, the

individual may not act as pilot in command

unless the individual has completed a flight

review in an R–44 within the preceding 12

calendar months and obtained an

endorsement for that flight review. The dual

instruction must include at least the

following abnormal and emergency

procedures flight training:

(A) enhanced training in autorotation

procedures,

(B) engine rotor RPM control without the

use of the governor,

(C) low rotor RPM recognition and

recovery, and

(D) effects of low G maneuvers and proper

recovery procedures.

* * * * *

(5) No certificated flight instructor may

provide instruction or conduct a flight review

in a Robinson model R–44 or R–44 unless

that instructor:

(i) Completes the awareness training in

paragraph 2(a) of this SFAR,

(ii) and for the R–22, has had at least 200

flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 flight

hours of which were in the Robinson R–22,

or for the R–44, has had at least 200 flight

hours in helicopters, 50 flight hours of which

were in Robinson helicopters. Up to 25 flight

hours of Robinson model R–22 flight time

may be credited toward the 50 hour

requirement,

(iii) Has completed flight training in an R–

22, R–44, or both, on the following abnormal

and emergency procedures:

(A) enhanced training in autorotation

procedures,

(B) engine rotor RPM control without the

use of the governor,

(C) low rotor RPM recognition and

recovery, and

(D) effects of low G maneuvers and proper

recovery procedures.

(iv) 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 instruction 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.

* * * * *

(3) Expiration date. This SFAR terminates

on December 31, 2002, unless sooner

superseded or rescinded.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on November

18, 1997.

Richard O. Gordon,

Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.

[FR Doc. 97–30772 Filed 11–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M