25646 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 61 

[Docket No.: FAA–2002–13744; Amendment 

No. SFAR 73–2] 

RIN 2120–AJ27 

Robinson R–22/R–44 Special Training 

and Experience Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action continues the 

existing special training and experience 

requirements in Special Federal 

Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 73 until 

the SFAR is revised or rescinded. 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 these helicopters. SFAR 

No. 73 also requires special training and 

experience for certified flight instructors 

conducting student instruction or flight 

reviews in the R–22 or R–44. 

DATES: This amendment becomes 

effective June 29, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions about this final rule 

contact John D. Lynch, Certification and 

General Aviation Operations Branch, 

AFS–810, General Aviation and 

Commercial Division, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

276–8212. For legal questions about this 

final rule contact Mike Chase, Office of 

Chief Counsel, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, 

telephone (202) 267–3110. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, section 106, describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator, 

including the authority to issue, rescind, 

and revise regulations. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Chapter 447—Safety 

Regulation. Under section 44701, the 

FAA is charged with promoting safe 

flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by 

prescribing regulations necessary for 

safety. Under section 44703, the FAA 

issues an airman certificate to an 

individual when we find, after 

investigation, that the individual is 

qualified for, and physically able to 

perform the duties related to, the 

position authorized by the certificate. In 

this final rule, we continue the existing 

special training and experience 

requirements in Special Federal 

Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 73 and 

eliminate the termination date for SFAR 

No. 73 until further notice. This final 

rule ensures pilots have the training and 

experience necessary to operate these 

models of Robinson helicopters safely. 

For this reason, the final rule is within 

the scope of our authority and is a 

reasonable and necessary exercise of our 

statutory obligations. 

I. 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 

teetering rotor system. Certain 

aerodynamic and design features of the 

aircraft cause specific flight 

characteristics that require particular 

pilot awareness and responsiveness. 

We found 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. Before 

issuance of SFAR No. 73 in 1995, 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. Accidents in the R–22 

and R–44 helicopters have declined 

markedly since SFAR No. 73 was 

issued. 

II. 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 or 

certified flight instructor duties. SFAR 

No. 73 was issued on an emergency 

basis, with an expiration date of 

December 31, 1997. On November 21, 

1997 the FAA published an NPRM (62 

FR 62486) to extend SFAR No. 73 to 

December 31, 2002. The final rule (63 

FR 660) extending SFAR No. 73 to 

December 31, 2002, was published on 

January 7, 1998. 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, we reissued SFAR No. 73 (68 FR 

39) and extended the rule’s expiration 

date to March 31, 2008. On March 31, 

2008, we extended SFAR No. 73 until 

June 30, 2009 (73 FR 17243). On August 

7, 2008, we published an NPRM 

proposing to eliminate the termination 

date for SFAR No. 73. 

III. Summary of Comments 

The FAA received 3 brief (one page) 

comments in response to the proposed 

rule. All the commenters acknowledged 

the valuable safety benefits of SFAR No. 

73 since 1995, though one commenter 

thought continuing the SFAR was no 

longer necessary because of the 

helicopter community’s awareness of 

the flight characteristics and risks of 2- 

blade teetering rotor systems. Two 

commenters were generally supportive 

of continuing an SFAR for the R–22 and 

R–44 helicopters, though both 

commenters thought updating and fine 

tuning the regulation was needed. All 

three commenters focused on possible 

changes that relate to the separate 

requirements for each model that apply 

to both piloting and instructing in each 

model. Lowering the hours required for 

operating or training in the R–44 was 

suggested in the context of moving from 

the R–22 model to the R–44. 

One commenter stated that since the 

adoption of SFAR No. 73 in 1995, the 

Robinson Helicopter Company has 

made modifications that affect the R–22 

and R–44 fleets. These modifications 

include a mandatory RPM governor, 

higher performance engines, hydraulicVerDate Nov<24>2008 15:25 May 28, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM 29MYR1

tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 25647 

assisted controls, new aircraft placards, 

and changes to the limitations and 

normal procedures in the aircraft flight 

manual. Additionally, this commenter 

noted that the FAA has updated the 

Rotorcraft Flying Handbook, FAA– 

H8083–21, and modified the Practical 

Test Standards for the helicopter rating 

practical tests to provide emphasis on 

the hazards associated with low G flight, 

mast bumping, and low RPM. This 

commenter suggested that the FAA 

establish a Flight Standardization Board 

(FSB) to evaluate the current situation 

with these helicopters and make any 

needed amendments to the SFAR prior 

to adopting a rule without an expiration 

date. 

The FAA notes that none of the 

commenters provided any detailed 

information or data about the current 

fleet of R–22 and R–44 helicopters. 

Similarly, none of the commenters 

analyzed current accident data for the 

R–22 and R–44 helicopters or provided 

a safety analysis to support their 

conclusions. 

In the FAA’s view, the safety 

importance of SFAR 73 clearly has been 

demonstrated. The accident rate for the 

Robinson R–44 and R–22 helicopter has 

declined precipitously since SFAR No. 

73 was established in 1995. Looking at 

recent data, the accident records and 

contributing causes of nearly 100 

Robinson R–22 accidents that occurred 

between 2005 and 2008 show that none 

of the accidents involved mast bumping, 

low rotor RPM, or low ‘‘G’’ hazards. The 

additional training required by SFAR 

No. 73 addresses these specific hazards. 

Based on the record of effectiveness, 

even if not solely attributed to SFAR 73, 

the FAA has determined that reliance 

on the general awareness in the 

helicopter community of the operating 

issues of the R–22 and R–44 helicopters 

is not consistent with safety. 

Nor, does the FAA believe that we 

need to conduct another FSB for the R– 

22 and R–44 helicopters before adopting 

SFAR No. 73 as proposed. In the case 

of the R–22, the FAA has conducted two 

FSBs. At the conclusion of the second 

FSB in the early 1990s, we established 

the additional training and qualification 

requirements contained in SFAR No. 73. 

While modifications made by the 

Robinson Helicopter Company to the R– 

22 and R–44 fleets may have improved 

the R–22 and R–44 helicopters, the FAA 

believes the additional training and 

qualification requirements in SFAR No. 

73 contributed significantly to reducing 

the number and types of accidents 

traditionally associated with these 

helicopters. 

The FAA continues to analyze the 

number of Robinson R–22 and R–44 

accidents in comparison to other makes 

and models of helicopters. Using the 

most recent data (2007), Table 1 shows 

the activity level of the pertinent models 

of helicopters and number of accidents 

involving Robinson R–22 and R–44 

helicopters in comparison to Schweizer 

269 and Enstrom 280 helicopters. These 

types of helicopters are generally used 

in the training environment for initial 

pilot certification. 

TABLE 1—2007 GENERAL AVIATION AND AIR TAXI SURVEY BY POPULATION SIZE, ACTIVE HELICOPTERS, TOTAL FLIGHT

HOURS, AND AVERAGE FLIGHT HOURS

Helicopter 

make/ 

model 

Aircraft population size Est. number 

active 

Percent 

standard 

error 

Est. percent 

active 

Percent 

standard 

error 

Est. total 

hours flown 

Percent 

standard 

error 

Est. average hours 

Percent 

standard 

error 

Enstrom 

280 ........ 143 108 0.8 75.4 0.8 6,473 12.2 60.0 9.2 

Schweizer 

269 ........ 403 366 0.4 90.7 0.4 147,936 6.0 404.7 5.4 

Total .. .................... 474 .................... .................... .................... 154,409 .................... 325.8 ....................

R–22 ......... 948 863 0.5 91.1 0.5 330,883 5.3 383.2 4.8 

R–44 ......... 1,022 999 0.2 97.8 0.2 184,624 5.0 184.8 4.9 

Total .. .................... 1,862 .................... .................... .................... 515,507 .................... 276.9 ....................

ENSTROM 280 AND SCHWEIZER 269 ACCIDENT RATE IN COMPARISON TO THE ROBINSON R–22 AND R–44 ACCIDENT

RATE

Helicopter type Number of 

accidents * 

Accident rate per 

100,000 hours of 

flight time flown 

Enstrom 280 and Schweizer 269 ............................................................................................................ 18 11.66 

Robinson R–22 and R–44 ....................................................................................................................... 54 10.48 

* Accident data from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. 

The data show the accident rate for 

the Robinson R–22 and R–44 per 

100,000 hours of flight is 10.48. While 

the accident rate is slightly lower than 

the accident rate of 11.66 per 100,000 

hours of flight for similar training 

helicopters, the roughly comparable 

accident rate has been achieved in the 

context of the special training 

requirements of SFAR 73. (If the 

comparison included only the R–22, 

which sees more use as a training 

aircraft, the accident rate for the R–22 

would be higher than the rate for the 

Enstrom 280 and the Schweizer 269.) 

We conclude that the additional training 

and qualification requirements in SFAR 

No. 73 have been a major factor leading 

to an improved safety record for the 

Robinson R–22 and R–44 helicopter in 

the training environment. 

Table 2 shows the activity level of the 

pertinent models of helicopters and 

contains data comparing the accident 

rate in the Robinson R–22 and R–44 

helicopter to the accident rate of 

helicopters which have a similar 

teetering or semi-rigid rotor system (Bell 

206, Bell 47G, and Hiller UH–12E) as 

the Robinson R–22 and R–44 helicopter. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
25648 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—2007 GENERAL AVIATION AND AIR TAXI SURVEY BY POPULATION SIZE, ACTIVE HELICOPTERS, TOTAL FLIGHT

HOURS, AND AVERAGE FLIGHT HOURS

Helicopter 

make/ 

model* 

Aircraft population size Est. number 

active 

Percent 

standard 

error 

Est. percent 

active 

Percent 

standard 

error 

Est. total 

hours flown 

Percent 

standard 

error 

Est. average hours 

Percent 

standard 

error 

BH–206 .... 1,650 1,448 0.5 87.7 0.5 589,158 3.1 407.0 2.7 

BH–47G ... 615 322 1.4 52.4 1.4 41,167 13.0 127.7 6.8 

UH–12E .... 253 119 1.6 47.1 1.6 28,131 11.4 236.1 5.4 

Total .. .................... 1,889 .................... .................... .................... 658,456 .................... 348.6 ....................

R–22 ......... 948 863 0.5 91.1 0.5 330,883 5.3 383.2 4.8 

–44 ........... 1,022 999 0.2 97.8 0.2 184,624 5.0 184.8 4.9 

Total .. .................... 1,862 .................... .................... .................... 515,507 .................... 276.9 ....................

BELL AND HILLER ACCIDENT RATE IN COMPARISON TO THE ROBINSON R–22 AND R–44 ACCIDENT RATE

Helicopter type Number of 

accidents ** 

Accident rate per 

100,000 hours of 

flight time flown 

Bell and Hiller Helicopters ....................................................................................................................... 49 7.44 

Robinson R–22 and R–44 ....................................................................................................................... 54 10.48 

* Bell Helicopter 206=BH–206; Bell Helicopter 47G=BH–47G; Hiller UH–12E=UH–12E; Robinson R–22=R–22; and Robinson R–44=R–44. 

** Accident data from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. 

The data in Table 2 show the accident 

rate per 100,000 hours of flight for the 

Robinson R–22 and R–44 is higher than 

the accident rate of the Bell 206, Bell 

47G, and Hiller UH–12E, 10.48 

compared to 7.44, respectively. While 

the helicopters being compared are 

different in other ways, nothing in the 

data suggests a reason to reduce the 

training requirements of SFAR 73. 

The FAA is willing to work with the 

helicopter industry, owners of Robinson 

R–22 and R–44 helicopters, and the 

Robinson Helicopter Company to 

evaluate any data, information, or safety 

analyses provided that might lead to 

future modification of SFAR No. 73. 

Adopting the rule without a specific 

expiration date is not a hindrance to 

modifying the rule based on updated 

data and analysis. At this time, 

however, the FAA does not believe an 

adequate safety rationale has been 

developed to warrant specific 

modifications to the current 

requirements. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. We 

have determined that there is no current 

or new requirement for information 

collection associated with this 

amendment. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these regulations. 

IV. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Analysis, and Unfunded 

Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or Tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. 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 final rule: (1) 

Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is 

not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

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

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; (5) will not create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States; and (6) will not impose 

an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or on the private 

sector by exceeding the threshold 

identified above. These analyses are 

summarized below. 

Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule 

The final rule will require those who 

receive or provide instruction in a 

Robinson R–22 or R–44 helicopter to 

incur additional costs related to special 

training and experience requirements. 

These requirements will impose costs of 


tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 25649 

approximately $9.8 million (present 

value, $6.9 million) over 10 years in 

2008 dollars. The potential safety 

benefits from the rule will 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. SFAR 73 is estimated to avert 

22 fatalities associated with low ‘‘G’’ 

maneuvers, and the expected 

corresponding safety benefits will be 

approximately $129 million (present 

value, $90.6 million) over ten years, in 

2008 dollars. Since benefits exceed 

costs, the FAA concludes that this rule 

is 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 final 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, as the Acting FAA 

Administrator, I certify that this final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

International Trade Analysis 

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–463), prohibits Federal agencies 

from engaging in any standards or 

related activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Pursuant to these Acts, 

the establishment of standards is not 

considered unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States, 

so long as the standards have a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and do not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA notes the 

purpose is to ensure the safety of the 

American public, and has assessed the 

effects of this rule to ensure it does not 

exclude imports that meet this objective. 

As a result, this final rule is not 

considered as creating an unnecessary 

obstacle to foreign commerce. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

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 (in 

1995 dollars) 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 final rule does not contain such 

a mandate. The requirements of Title II 

do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final 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 

Federal Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have federalism implications. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 6 and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

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 regulatory action’’ under 

the executive order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures, and 

it is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents 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 amendment number or 

docket number of this rulemaking. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

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

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 


tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
25650 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. If 

you are a small entity and you have a 

question regarding this document, you 

may contact your local FAA official, or 

the person listed under the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the 

beginning of the preamble. You can find 

out more about SBREFA on the Internet 

at http://www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies/rulemaking/ 

sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 61 

Aircraft, Aircraft pilots, Airmen, 

Airplanes, Air safety, Air transportation, 

Aviation safety, Balloons, Helicopters, 

Rotorcraft, Students. 

The Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, 

FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND 

INSTRUCTORS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(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 No. 73 

shall remain in effect until it is revised 

or rescinded. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 26, 

2009. 

Lynne A. Osmus, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–12532 Filed 5–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 902 

50 CFR Part 665 

[Docket No. 070719388–9911–04] 

RIN 0648–AV29 

Fisheries in the Western Pacific; 

Crustacean Fisheries; Deepwater 

Shrimp 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; effectiveness of 

collection-of-information requirements. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces approval by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) of collection-of-information 

requirements contained in regulations 

implementing Amendment 13 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for 

Crustacean Fisheries of the Western 

Pacific Region. The intent of this final 

rule is to inform the public that the 

associated permitting and reporting 

requirements have been approved by 

OMB. 

DATES: This rule is effective June 29, 

2009. The amendments to 50 CFR 

665.13, 665.41, and 665.42, published at 

73 FR 70603 (November 21, 2008) and 

corrected at 73 FR 75622 (December 12, 

2008) have been approved by OMB and 

are effective on June 29, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments 

regarding the burden-hour estimates or 

other aspects of the collection-ofinformation requirements contained in 

this final rule may be submitted to 

William L. Robinson, Administrator, 

NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1601 

Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 1110, 

Honolulu, HI 96814–4700, and to David 

Rostker, OMB, by e-mail to 

David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brett Wiedoff, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, NMFS PIR, 808–944–2272. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

Federal Register document is also 

accessible at www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/. 

A final rule for Amendment 13 was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 21, 2008 (73 FR 70603), and 

an associated correction notice was 

published on December 12, 2008 (73 FR 

75622). The requirements of that final 

rule, other than the collection-ofinformation requirements, were 

effective on December 22, 2008. Because 

OMB approval of the collection-ofinformation requirements had not been 

received by the date that final rule was 

published, the effective date of the 

associated permitting and reporting 

requirements in that rule was delayed. 

OMB approved the collection-ofinformation requirements contained in 

the final rule on May 1, 2009. 

Under NOAA Administrative Order 

205–11, dated December 17, 1990, the 

Under Secretary for Oceans and 

Atmosphere has delegated authority to 

sign material for publication in the 

Federal Register to the Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. 

Classification 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, and no person shall be 

subject to penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

This final rule contains new 

collection-of-information requirements 

subject to the PRA under OMB Control 

Number 0648–0586. The public 

reporting burden for these requirements 

is estimated to be 0.5 hours per permit 

applicant, with permit renewals 

requiring an additional 0.5 hours 

annually, approximately 10 min per 

vessel per fishing day to complete 

Federal catch reports. These estimates 

include time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

the collection of information. Send 

comments regarding these burden 

estimates or any other aspect of this data 

collection, including suggestions for 

reducing the burden, to William L. 

Robinson (see ADDRESSES), or by e-mail 

to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax 

to 202–395–7285. 

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 902 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 21, 2009 

John Oliver, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator For 

Operations, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 15 CFR part 902 is amended 

as follows: 


tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES