Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience Requirements, 25646-25650 [E9-12532]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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the SFAR is revised or rescinded.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:
tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:25 May 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 2blade 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, hydraulic-
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
25647
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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
Percent
standard
error
Est. percent
active
Percent
standard
error
Percent
standard
error
Est. total
hours flown
Est. average hours
Percent
standard
error
Aircraft population size
Est. number
active
Enstrom
280 ........
Schweizer
269 ........
143
108
0.8
75.4
0.8
6,473
12.2
60.0
9.2
403
366
0.4
90.7
0.4
147,936
6.0
404.7
5.4
Total ..
....................
474
....................
....................
....................
154,409
....................
325.8
....................
R–22 .........
R–44 .........
948
1,022
863
999
0.5
0.2
91.1
97.8
0.5
0.2
330,883
184,624
5.3
5.0
383.2
184.8
4.8
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
Accident rate per
100,000 hours of
flight time flown
Number of
accidents *
Helicopter type
Enstrom 280 and Schweizer 269 ............................................................................................................
Robinson R–22 and R–44 .......................................................................................................................
18
54
11.66
10.48
tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
* 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,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:25 May 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
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*
Percent
standard
error
Est. percent
active
Percent
standard
error
Percent
standard
error
Est. total
hours flown
Percent
standard
error
Aircraft population size
Est. number
active
Est. average hours
BH–206 ....
BH–47G ...
UH–12E ....
1,650
615
253
1,448
322
119
0.5
1.4
1.6
87.7
52.4
47.1
0.5
1.4
1.6
589,158
41,167
28,131
3.1
13.0
11.4
407.0
127.7
236.1
2.7
6.8
5.4
Total ..
....................
1,889
....................
....................
....................
658,456
....................
348.6
....................
R–22 .........
–44 ...........
948
1,022
863
999
0.5
0.2
91.1
97.8
0.5
0.2
330,883
184,624
5.3
5.0
383.2
184.8
4.8
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
Accident rate per
100,000 hours of
flight time flown
Number of
accidents **
Helicopter type
Bell and Hiller Helicopters .......................................................................................................................
Robinson R–22 and R–44 .......................................................................................................................
49
54
7.44
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.
tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:25 May 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 102 / Friday, May 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:25 May 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
25649
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 (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 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 https://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
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 https://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]
tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:25 May 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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:
■
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 102 (Friday, May 29, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25646-25650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12532]
[[Page 25646]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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. 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, hydraulic-
[[Page 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Percent Est. Percent Percent Est. Percent
Helicopter make/model population Est. number standard percent standard Est. total standard average standard
size active error active error hours flown error hours 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accident rate per
Helicopter type Number of 100,000 hours of
accidents * 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.
[[Page 25648]]
Table 2--2007 General Aviation and Air Taxi Survey by Population Size, Active Helicopters, Total Flight Hours, and Average Flight Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Percent Est. Percent Percent Est. Percent
Helicopter make/model* population Est. number standard percent standard Est. total standard average standard
size active error active error hours flown error hours 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accident rate per
Helicopter type Number of 100,000 hours of
accidents ** 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
[[Page 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 (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 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
https://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with
[[Page 25650]]
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 https://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
0
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
0
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.
0
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
* * * * *
0
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
