[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 153 (Thursday, August 7, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45905-45908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18239]


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

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:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow

[[Page 45906]]

the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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 
piston-powered 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 45908]]

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 re-examined 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 Sec.  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