Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience Requirements, 45905-45908 [E8-18239]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Following Cessna Mandatory Service Bulletin
SB–07–018, dated May 29, 2008.
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
https://www.regulations.gov.
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.
rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
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.
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]
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
ACTION:
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.
Send your comments to reach us
on or before November 5, 2008.
DATES:
You may send comments
identified by Docket Number FAA–
2002–13744 using any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and follow
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
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 https://
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 https://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: To read background
documents or comments received, go to
https://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.
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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.
rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45907
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
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
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 https://
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.
rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:16 Aug 06, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 (https://
www.regulations.gov);
(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and
Policies web page at: https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
(3) Accessing the Government
Printing Office’s web page at: https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
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
E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM
07AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 153 (Thursday, August 7, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45905-45908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow
[[Page 45906]]
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
https://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 https://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
https://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 https://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 (https://
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: https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
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
