Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45905 

Actions Compliance Procedures 

(2) Access and inspect the aileron bearings in 

both wings and the elevator bearings in the 

fuselage for foreign object debris.

Initially inspect within the next 35 hours timein-service (TIS) after April 9, 2007 (the 

compliance date retained from AD 2007–

07–06). Repetitively inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 calendar months.

Following Columbia Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–07–002, dated March 14, 2007, or 

Cessna Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–07–

002D, dated May 29, 2008, and FAA-approved maintenance procedures. The appropriate maintenance manual contains 

these procedures. 

(3) Remove any debris found during any inspection required in paragraph (e)(2) of this 

AD.

Before further flight after the inspection in 

which the debris is found.

Following Columbia Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–07–002, dated March 14, 2007, or 

Cessna Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–07–

002D, dated May 29, 2008, and FAA-approved maintenance procedures. The appropriate maintenance manual contains 

these procedures. 

(4) Inspect the aileron and elevator control rods 

for scarring or damage near the linear bearings.

Initially inspect within the next 35 hours TIS 

after April 9, 2007 (the compliance date retained from AD 2007–07–06). Repetitively 

inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 

12 calendar months.

Following Columbia Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–07–002, dated March 14, 2007, or 

Cessna Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–07–

002D, dated May 29, 2008, and FAA-approved maintenance procedures. The appropriate maintenance manual contains 

these procedures. 

(5) Contact the manufacturer at the address 

specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD for a 

repair scheme if any scarring or damage is 

found during any inspection required in paragraph (e)(4) of this AD.

Make all repairs before further flight after the 

inspection in which scarring or damage is 

found.

Following Columbia Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–07–002, dated March 14, 2007, or 

Cessna Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–07–

002D, dated May 29, 2008, and FAA-approved maintenance procedures. The appropriate maintenance manual contains 

these procedures. 

(6) For the inspections required in paragraphs 

(e)(2) and (e)(4) of this AD, you may install a 

linear bearing access panel instead of drilling 

an inspection hole. If the hole has previously 

been drilled, the access panel may also be 

installed in addition to the inspection hole.

At any time after the effective date of this AD Following Cessna Mandatory Service Bulletin 

SB–07–018, dated May 29, 2008. 

Note 1: Previous compliance with 

paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(5) of this AD 

using Columbia Mandatory Service Bulletin 

SB–07–002A, dated August 29, 2007; Cessna 

Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–07–002B, 

dated December 10, 2007; or Cessna 

Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–07–002C, 

dated February 18, 2008, are acceptable 

methods of compliance. 

Note 2: Compliance with Cessna 

Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–07–018, 

dated May 29, 2008, is not considered 

terminating action for this AD. This AD takes 

precedence over Cessna Mandatory Service 

Bulletin SB–07–018, dated May 29, 2008. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(f) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Jeff 

Morfitt, Aerospace Engineer, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone: 

(425) 917–6405; fax: (425) 917–6590, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC 

on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

(g) AMOCs approved for AD 2007–07–06 

are approved for this AD. 

Related Information 

(h) To get copies of the service information 

referenced in this AD, contact Cessna Aircraft 

Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706, 

Wichita, Kansas 67227; phone (316) 517–

5800; fax: (316) 942–9006. To view the AD 

docket, go to U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 

1, 2008. 

James E. Jackson, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–18231 Filed 8–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 61 

[Docket No. FAA–2002–13744; Notice No. 

08–09] 

RIN 2120–AJ25 

Robinson R–22/R–44 Special Training 

and Experience Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

continue the existing special training 

and experience requirements in Special 

Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 

73 and eliminate the termination date 

for SFAR 73. Currently, SFAR No. 73 is 

a final rule that will expire on June 30, 

2009. Since 1998, the FAA has extended 

SFAR 73 for two 5-year periods. The 

FAA recently re-issued SFAR No. 73 

and extended the rule’s expiration date 

to June 30, 2009. SFAR No. 73 requires 

special training and experience for 

pilots operating the Robinson model R–

22 or R–44 helicopters in order to 

maintain the safe operation of Robinson 

helicopters. It also requires special 

training and experience for certified 

flight instructors conducting student 

instruction or flight reviews in R–22 or 

R–44 helicopters. 

DATES: Send your comments to reach us 

on or before November 5, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA–

2002–13744 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
45906 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring 

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. 

For more information on the rulemaking 

process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of our docket 

web site, anyone can find and read the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

sending the comment (or signing the 

comment for an association, business, 

labor union, etc.). You may review 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement 

in the Federal Register published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time 

and follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket. Or, go to the 

Docket Management Facility 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: John 

Lynch, Certification and General 

Aviation Operations Branch, AFS–810, 

General Aviation and Commercial 

Division, 800 Independence Ave., SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: 

(202) 267–8212. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in 

this preamble under the Additional 

Information section, we discuss how 

you can comment on this proposal and 

how we will handle your comments. 

Included in this discussion is related 

information about the docket, privacy, 

and the handling of proprietary or 

confidential business information. We 

also discuss how you can get a copy of 

this proposal and related rulemaking 

documents. 

I. Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, section 106, describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator, 

including the authority to issue, rescind, 

and revise regulations. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Chapter 447—Safety 

Regulation. Under section 44701, the 

FAA is charged with promoting safe 

flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by 

prescribing regulations necessary for 

safety. Under section 44703, the FAA 

issues an airman certificate to an 

individual when we find, after 

investigation, that the individual is 

qualified for, and physically able to 

perform the duties related to, the 

position authorized by the certificate. In 

this NPRM, we are proposing to 

continue the existing special training 

and experience requirements in Special 

Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 

73 and to extend the termination date 

for SFAR 73 until further notice. The 

proposed changes are intended to 

ensure pilots have the training and 

experience necessary to operate these 

models of Robinson helicopters safely. 

For this reason, the proposed changes 

are within the scope of our authority 

and are a reasonable and necessary 

exercise of our statutory obligations. 

II. Background 

Part 61 of Title 14 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 61) 

details the certification requirements for 

pilots and flight instructors. 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, in 1995 the Federal 

Aviation Administration (referred to as 

‘‘we’’) determined 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 a low-cost initial 

student training aircraft. The R–44 is a 

4-seat helicopter with operating 

characteristics and design features that 

are similar to 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. 

We found that the R–22 met 14 CFR 

part 27 certification requirements and 

issued a type certificate in 1979. The 

small size and relatively low operating 

costs of this helicopter made it popular 

as a training or small utility aircraft. 

Thus, a significant number of the pilots 

operating R–22 helicopters were 

relatively inexperienced. Prior to 

issuance of SFAR No. 73, the Robinson 

R–22 experienced a higher number of 

fatal accidents due to main rotor/ 

airframe contact than other pistonpowered helicopters. Many of these 

accidents were caused by low rotor 

revolutions per minute (RPM) or low 

‘‘G’’ conditions that resulted in mast 

bumping or main rotor-airframe contact 

accidents. Aviation safety authorities 

attributed these accidents to pilot error 

by inexperienced pilots. In our analysis 

of accident data prior to the first 

issuance of SFAR No. 73, we found that 

apparently qualified pilots may not be 

properly prepared to safely operate the 

R–22 and R–44 helicopters in certain 

flight conditions. 

A recent analysis of approximately 

100 R–22 accidents that occurred 

between 2005 and 2008 indicated that 

none of them involved mast bumping, 

low rotor RPM (blade stall) or low ‘‘G’’

hazards. Because the training required 

by this SFAR addressed these hazards, 

the FAA believes that the training has 

been effective. Therefore, we have 

determined that additional pilot 

training, originally established by SFAR 

No. 73, as modified in SFAR No. 73–1, 

continues to be needed for the safe 

operation of these helicopters. 

III. Previous Regulatory Action 

On March 1, 1995, the FAA published 

SFAR No. 73 (60 FR 11256). This SFAR 

required certain experience and training 

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

or certified flight instructor (CFI) duties. 

SFAR No. 73 was issued on an 

emergency basis, with an expiration 

date of December 31, 1997. On 

November 21, 1997 (62 FR 62486), the 

FAA published an NPRM to extend 

SFAR No. 73 to December 31, 2002, 

with a minor amendment. The final rule 

extending SFAR No. 73 to December 31, 

2002 was published on January 7, 1998 

(63 FR 660). On November 14, 2002, the 

FAA published an NPRM (67 FR 69106) 

proposing to extend SFAR No. 73 an 

additional 5 years. On January 2, 2003, 

the FAA again re-issued SFAR No. 73 

(68 FR 39–43) and extended the rule’s 

expiration date to March 31, 2008. On 

March 31, 2008, we extended the SFAR 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45907 

No. 73 until June 30, 2009 (73 FR 

17243). 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Public Law 96–39) prohibits 

agencies from setting standards that 

create unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States. 

In developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this proposed rule. 

We suggest readers seeking greater 

detail read the full regulatory 

evaluation, a copy of which we have 

placed in the docket for this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined that this proposed rule: 

(1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) 

is not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; (5) would not create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States; and (6) 

would not impose an unfunded 

mandate on state, local, or tribal 

governments, or on the private sector by 

exceeding the threshold identified 

above. These analyses are summarized 

below. 

Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule 

The proposed rule would cause those 

who receive or provide instruction in a 

Robinson R–22 or R–44 helicopter to 

incur additional costs related to specific 

flight training and awareness training. 

These proposed requirements would 

impose costs of approximately $8 

million (present value, $5.6 million) 

over ten years in 2007 dollars. The 

potential safety benefits from the final 

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 reduction in 

the number of accidents would be due 

to the increased level of safety due to 

specific flight training and awareness 

training requirements for all individuals 

operating Robinson R–22 and R–44 

aircraft. Since the net reduction in 

accidents as a result of SFAR 73 would 

be 22 fatalities associated with low ‘‘G’’

maneuvers, the FAA estimates the 

expected safety benefits to be 

approximately $129 million (present 

value, $90.6 million) over ten years, in 

2007 dollars. Since benefits exceed 

costs, the FAA concludes that this rule 

would be cost-beneficial. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

establishes ‘‘as a principle of regulatory 

issuance that agencies shall endeavor, 

consistent with the objective of the rule 

and of applicable statutes, to fit 

regulatory and informational 

requirements to the scale of the 

business, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve that principle, 

the Act requires agencies to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions. The Act covers a wide-range of 

small entities, including small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

and small governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a proposed or final 

rule will have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. If the determination is that it 

will, the agency must prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) as 

described in the Act. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a proposed or final rule is not expected 

to have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 Act 

provides that the head of the agency 

may so certify and an RFA is not 

required. The certification must include 

a statement providing the factual basis 

for this determination, and the 

reasoning should be clear. 

This proposed rule will indefinitely 

extend SFAR 73, initially published on 

March 1, 1995, and extended three 

times since. 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. Therefore, the FAA concludes 

that this proposed rule would not have 

a significant economic impact on any 

small entities. 

International Trade Impact Statement 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

prohibits Federal agencies from 

engaging in any standards or related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

In accordance with the above statute, 

the FAA has assessed the potential 

effect of this proposed rule and has 

determined that it would have only a 

domestic impact and therefore create no 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 requires each 

Federal agency to prepare a written 

statement assessing the effects of any 

Federal mandate in a proposed or final 

agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector; such a mandate is 

deemed to be a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action.’’ The FAA currently uses an 

inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 

million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate. The requirements of 

Title II do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, we 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not have federalism implications. 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) and Joint Aviation 

Regulations 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
45908 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

Plain Language 

In response to the June 1, 1998 

Presidential Memorandum regarding the 

use of plain language, the FAA reexamined the writing style currently 

used in the development of regulations. 

The memorandum requires federal 

agencies to communicate clearly with 

the public. We are interested in your 

comments on whether the style of this 

document is clear, and in any other 

suggestions you might have to improve 

the clarity of FAA communications that 

affect you. 

You can get more information about 

the Presidential memorandum and the 

plain language initiative at http:// 

www.plainlanguage.gov. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this NPRM 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We 

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

IV. Additional Information 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. We also invite comments relating 

to the economic, environmental, energy, 

or federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

please send only one copy of written 

comments, or if you are filing comments 

electronically, please submit your 

comments one time. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposed rulemaking. 

Before acting on this proposal, we will 

consider all comments we receive on or 

before the closing date for comments. 

We will consider comments filed after 

the comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change this 

proposal in light of the comments we 

receive. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not file in the docket information 

that you consider to be proprietary or 

confidential business information. Send 

or deliver this information directly to 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. You must mark the 

information that you consider 

proprietary or confidential. If you send 

the information on a disk or CD–ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM 

and also identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is proprietary or 

confidential. 

Under § 11.35(b), when we are aware 

of proprietary information filed with a 

comment, we do not place it in the 

docket. We hold it in a separate file to 

which the public does not have access, 

and place a note in the docket that we 

have received it. If we receive a request 

to examine or copy this information, we 

treat it as any other request under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552). We process such a request under 

the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR 

part 7. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by—

(1) Searching the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (http:// 

www.regulations.gov); 

(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies web page at: http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or 

(3) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s web page at: http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the docket number, notice 

number, or amendment number of this 

rulemaking. 

You may access all documents the 

FAA considered in developing this 

proposed rule, including economic 

analyses and technical reports, from the 

internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in 

paragraph (1). 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 61 

Aircraft, Aircraft pilots, Airmen, 

Airplanes, Air safety, Air transportation, 

Aviation safety, Balloons, Helicopters, 

Rotorcraft, Students. 

The Proposed Amendment 

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, 

FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND 

INSTRUCTORS 

1. The authority citation for part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

45301–45302. 

2. Revise section 3 of SFAR No. 73 to 

read as follows: 

Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 

73—Robinson R–22/R–44 Special Training 

and Experience Requirements 

* * * * * 

3. Expiration date. This SFAR number 

73 shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Issued in Washington, DC on July 30, 2008. 

James J. Ballough, 

Director, Flight Standards Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–18239 Filed 8–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–140029–07] 

RIN 1545–BH62 

Substantiation and Reporting 

Requirements for Cash and Noncash 

Charitable Contribution Deductions 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: These proposed regulations 

provide guidance concerning 

substantiation and reporting 

requirements for cash and noncash 

charitable contributions under section 

170 of the Internal Revenue Code 

(Code). The regulations reflect the 

enactment of provisions of the 

American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 and 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS