[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 4 (Wednesday, January 7, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 660-666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-317]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 61

[Docket No. 28095; SFAR No. 73-1]
RIN 2120-AG47


Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training And Experience Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule extends the expiration date of Special Federal 
Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 73, and amends the special training and 
experience requirements for pilots operating the Robinson R-22 or R-44 
helicopters in order to maintain the safe operation of Robinson 
helicopters. It also requires special training and experience 
requirements for certified flight instructors conducting student 
instruction or flight reviews. The purpose of this action is to 
maintain awareness of and training for the potential hazards of 
particular flight operations needed for the continued safe operation of 
Robinson helicopters.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 31, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert J. O'Haver, Operations Branch, AFS-820, General Aviation and 
Commercial Division, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20591; telephone: (202) 267-7031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Final Rule

    This document may be downloaded from the FAA regulations section of 
the FedWorld electronic bulletin board (telephone: 703-321-3339), the 
Federal Register's electronic bulletin board (telephone: 202-512-1661), 
or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Bulletin Board 
(telephone: 800-322-2722 or 202-267-5948).
    Internet users may access the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov 
or the Federal Register's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/
su__docs to download recently published rulemaking documents.
    Any person may obtain a copy of this final rule by submitting a 
request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 
ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 
calling (202) 267-9677. Communications must reference the amendment 
number of this final rule.

[[Page 661]]

    Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future 
rules should request a copy of Advisory Circular (AC) No. 11-2A, Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the 
application procedure.

Small Entity Inquiries

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 
(SBREFA) requires the FAA to report inquiries from small entities 
concerning information on, and advice about, compliance with statutes 
and regulations within the FAA's jurisdiction, including interpretation 
and application of the law to specific sets of facts supplied by a 
small entity.
    The FAA's definitions of small entities may be accessed through the 
FAA's web page http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm, by contacting a 
local FAA official, or by contacting the FAA's Small Entity Contact 
listed below.
    If you are a small entity and have a question, contact your local 
FAA official. If you do not know how to contact your local FAA 
official, you may contact Charlene Brown, Program Analyst Staff, Office 
of Rulemaking, ARM-27, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, 1-888-551-1594. 
Internet users can find additional information on SBREFA in the ``Quick 
Jump'' section of the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov and may send 
electronic inquiries to the following Internet address: 9-AWA-
[email protected].

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, the FAA determined in 1995 that specific training 
and experience requirements are necessary for the safe operation of 
Robinson R-22 and R-44 helicopters.
    The R-22 is a 2-seat, reciprocating engine-powered helicopter that 
is frequently used as low-cost initial student training aircraft. The 
R-44 is a 4-seat helicopter with similar operating characteristics and 
design features of the R-22. The R-22 is the smallest helicopter in its 
class and incorporates a unique cyclic control and rotor system. Its 
small size and relatively low operating costs result in its use as a 
training or small utility aircraft, and its operation by a significant 
population of relatively inexperienced helicopter pilots. However, 
certain aerodynamic and design features of the aircraft cause specific 
flight characteristics that require particular pilot awareness and 
responsiveness.
    The FAA found that the R-22 met 14 CFR part 27 certification 
requirements and issued a type certificate in 1979; however, the R-22 
has had a high number of fatal accidents due to main rotor/airframe 
contact when compared to other piston powered helicopters. Overall, 
since the R-22 was certificated, there have been 339 accidents in the 
U.S. involving R-22's. Many of these accidents have been attributed to 
pilot performance or inexperience, leading to low rotor revolutions per 
minute (RPM) or low ``G'' conditions that resulted in mast bumping and/
or main rotor-airframe contact accidents.
    In its analysis of accident data, the FAA has found that apparently 
qualified pilots may not be properly prepared to safely operate the R-
22 and R-44 helicopters in certain flight conditions. The additional 
pilot training, originally established by SFAR 73, continues to be 
needed for the safe operation of these helicopters.

Previous Regulatory Action

    To address the accident causes, on March 1, 1995, the FAA published 
SFAR 73 (60 FR 11256) which required certain additional experience and 
training to perform pilot-in-command (PIC) and/or certified flight 
instructor (CFI) duties. SFAR 73 was issued on an emergency basis 
without the usual public notice and comment; however, the FAA sought 
comment on the final SFAR.
    Since the issuance of SFAR 73, which expires on December 31, 1997, 
no accidents have occurred related to low rotor RPM, low g maneuvers, 
and main rotor/airframe contact. Therefore, on November 21, 1997 (62 FR 
62486), the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) No. 
97-15 which proposed to extend the provisions of SFAR 73 until December 
31, 2002, with a minor amendment. As noted above, the preamble to 
Notice No. 97-15 discussed the 46 comments that the FAA had received 
after the issuance of SFAR 73 in 1995 and those comments were 
considered by the FAA in the issuance of this rule.

The Amendment

    As previously noted, since the issuance of SFAR 73, there has been 
a dramatic drop in the accident rate of Robinson helicopters associated 
with low ``G'' maneuvers, low motor rpm and main rotor/airframe 
contact. Also in the interim, the FAA has taken steps to improve the 
airworthiness of the R-22 and R-44 through the issuance of a number of 
airworthiness directives. Both of these factors support the FAA's 
proposal to extend the provisions of SFAR 73.
    The comments received on SFAR 73 demonstrated that there is a 
general consensus that the required training is beneficial to those 
operating Robinson helicopters. Also, the ongoing increase of new 
rotary wing pilots supports continuing the requirements of SFAR 73.
    This rule also contains a minor amendment to SFAR 73 to clarify 
paragraph 2(b)(5) regarding the instructor experience required to 
conduct training in either the R-22 or R-44. The FAA has recognized 
that the R-44, which was not operated in the U.S. in large numbers when 
SFAR 73 was originally promulgated, is being operated in greater 
numbers now. The FAA has also recognized that the R-44 is a more stable 
aircraft than the R-22. Therefore, the FAA is allowing the crediting of 
up to 25 flight hours acquired in the R-22 helicopter towards the 50 
flight hour experience requirements of paragraph 2(b)(2)(i) for the R-
44, and up to 5 hours of dual instruction received in the R-22 credited 
toward the 10 hour dual flight instruction requirement of 2(b)(2)(ii) 
for the R-44.
    In addition, paragraph 2(b)(5)(ii) is clarified in this amendment. 
The FAA had receive many inquiries as to the intent of this paragraph. 
Individuals have mistaken the intent of the paragraph and had concluded 
that instructors may be endorsed to provide flight instruction in the 
R-22 or R-44 if they comply with paragraph 2(b)(1)(ii) or 2(b)(2)(ii) 
of the SFAR. It is contended that the reference in paragraph 
2(b)(5)(ii) to the experience requirements of 2(b)(1)(i) or 2(b)(2)(i) 
includes the ``or;'' at the end of the sentence.
    This was not the FAA's intent; paragraph 2(b)(5)(ii) separately 
refers to the R-22 and the R-44. However to avoid any future confusion, 
the FAA is changing paragraph 2(b)(5)(ii) to clarify the specific 
requirements.
    As discussed in Notice No. 97-15, the FAA is also amending 
paragraphs 2(b)(1)(ii) and 2(b)(2)(ii) in response to a comment made by 
Robinson Helicopter Company (RHC) supported by 15 additional commenters 
on the original emergency SFAR. RHC proposed a reduction in the hours 
of dual instruction from 10 hours to 5 hours for those persons who had 
an

[[Page 662]]

experience level of more than 200 flight hours in helicopters.
    Additionally, a clause stating the need for a flight instructor's 
endorsement prior to exercising the privileges of a pilot in command of 
an Robinson R-44 was inadvertently left out of the proposal to amend 
paragraph 2(b)(2)(ii). That requirement exists in the current SFAR was 
written; it's omission is considered minor and editorial in nature and 
had been corrected in this amendment.

Discussion of Comments

    Fifty-six comments were received before the docket closed on 
December 22, 1997 on Notice No. 97-15. Of this total, 42 individual 
pilot commenters submitted identical letters supporting the position of 
the R-22/R-44 Operators & Pilots Association.
    The identical pilot commenters express overall support of SFAR 73, 
citing various statistics documenting the reduced accident rate 
involving R-22 and R-44 helicopters since the SFAR has been in effect. 
While these commenters are in favor of continuing the mandated 
awareness training for all pilots of R-22 and R-44 helicopters, they 
recommend that ``mandated hourly flight requirements * * * be modified 
unless future fatal accident rates indicate otherwise.'' Specifically, 
these commenters recommend amending paragraph 2(b)(5)(ii) to read as 
follows:
    ``and for the R-22, has had at least 150 flight hours in an R-22 
(or at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours 
of which were in the Robinson R-22), or for the R-44, has had at least 
200 flight hours in helicopters, 50 flight hours of which were in the 
Robinson helicopters. Up to 25 flight hours of Robinson R-22 flight 
time may be credited toward the 50 hour requirement.''
    The effect of the recommended change would be to reduce the total 
number of required flight hours for a qualified R-22 flight instructor 
from 200 flight hours to 150 flight hours if all 150 flight hours were 
in an R-22.
    These commenters state that this change would enhance safety by 
ensuring that flight instructors operating in the R-22 have a greater 
number of flight hours in the same make and model of helicopter that 
they will be teaching in.
    The FAA disagrees with this comment. As was stated in the preamble 
to SFAR 73 and the NPRM, the FAA is convinced a clear relationship 
exists between pilot inexperience in the R-22 and R-44 helicopter and 
main rotor/airframe contact accidents. In 23 of the 30 fatal accidents, 
the pilots apparently manipulating the controls have had less than 200 
flight hours in the model of Robinson helicopter they were operating. 
The FAA has determined that 200 flight hours is needed for the safe 
operation of either helicopter.
    One commenter (Rotorcraft, Inc.) states that SFAR 73 is an unfair 
burden on R-22/R-44 operators and should not be continued. This 
commenter states that SFAR 73 serves no safety function because the R-
22/R-44 has been found to be the safest in the industry.
    The FAA disagrees with this statement. Prior to the SFAR, there 
were 30 fatal accidents involving Robinson helicopters and low rotor 
RPM or ``low G'' maneuvers leading to main rotor/airframe contact. The 
R-22's and the R-44's two blade, low inertia, teetering rotor system 
(combined with a high tail mount position of the tail rotor) has 
repeatedly been involved in the type of accident which this SFAR is 
designed to address. The FAA determined that the additional special 
experience requirements and awareness training was necessary for safe 
operation of these helicopters as part of a comprehensive program that 
responded to the high number of accidents involving these helicopters. 
Other elements of the program included addressing design and 
operational issues that may have been contributing factors in some of 
these accidents. The FAA has determined that SFAR 73 is essential for 
the safe operation of the R-22 and R-44 helicopters.
    Robinson Helicopter Company and Sky Helicopters support the 
proposed changes in SFAR 73 but strongly recommends that the same 
reasoning should be applied to the biennial flight review, which would 
then recognize flight review in the R-22 to be valid for flight in the 
R-44. These commenters and one other commenter also request that the 
requirements of the SFAR ``be reviewed and re-evaluated at least every 
two years so that any additional changes based upon experience may be 
promptly implemented.'' Thus, this commenter recommends that SFAR 73 
should be extended until December 31, 1999, rather than 2002.
    The FAA disagrees with the comment regarding biennial flight 
reviews. The requirements for the flight review in the R-22 helicopter 
were established by the R-22 Flight Standardization Board (FSB) Report, 
dated February 15, 1995. This report states in paragraph 8.2, ``All 
pilots who wish to act as pilot in command of a Robinson R-22 aircraft 
should complete a flight review as required by FAR Part 61.56 in a 
Robinson R-22 model helicopter.'' The FSB report for the R-44, also 
dated February 15, 1995, make similar statements regarding the 
completion of a flight review in a R-44 specifically.
    The FAA disagrees with the recommendation for a shorter effective 
period. A longer effective period of the SFAR will allow for sufficient 
collection of data and analysis. But, as noted below, other safety 
authorities have stated that this SFAR should be made permanent. The 
FAA has determined that 5 years of data will more fully address both 
recommendations.
    Another comment submitted by Robinson Helicopter Company's 
Engineering Department recommends simplification of the wording of the 
amendatory language in the proposal.
    The FAA did not adopt this suggestion. The FAA reviewed the 
specific wording suggested and determined that the wording as written 
in the proposed rule was clear regarding the type of flight hours which 
can be credited toward the aeronautical experience for the R44, i.e. 
the creditable time must be in the R-22, not a helicopter other than 
the R-22.
    Another comment by an individual helicopter pilot says that the 
SFAR has been successful in reducing fatal accidents in the R-22 and R-
44, caused by the low RPM stalls and low G maneuvering, through 
increased pilot awareness training. The commenter states that this 
training will continue to be carried forward and that there is no 
longer a need for the SFAR, therefore it should not be renewed.
    The FAA disagrees that this recommendation. The specific points 
made by this commenter are the precise reasons why the FAA will extend 
the SFAR so as to ensure that this training is given to new students 
entering the training population. The R-22's and R-44's accident record 
before and after this SFAR is strong evidence that a mandatory rule is 
needed for the continued safe operation of these helicopters.
    Another individual helicopter pilot supports the annual awareness 
training required by the SFAR but believes that adding more 
restrictions (additional flight instruction hours) would increase the 
cost of flying Robinson helicopters, thereby discouraging people from 
flying these helicopters. This commenter says that the cost analysis in 
the proposal ``appears to be about 15-20% low for the available 
services in my area'' (Kansas). The commenter suggests not changing 
SFAR 73 for another year so that more data can be compiled.
    For reasons discussed previously, the FAA has determined that the 
extension of the SFAR as amended is needed. Also, this amendment has 
not added

[[Page 663]]

any restrictions from the previous rule, but instead, has granted 
credit for specific experience in the R-22, thereby reducing the 
overall requirements for gaining a rating in both the R-22 and R-44. 
Therefore, this SFAR will not increase flight instruction hours.
    Also, the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board 
(NTSB) filed a comment that concurred with the extension of the SFAR as 
proposed. He noted that the NTSB had made multiple recommendations to 
the FAA concerning the R-22 and R-44, and that the NTSB recommended the 
SFAR should be made permanent. The FAA agrees with the NTSB and most 
commenters that safety dictates that the SFAR should continue without 
lapse until December 31, 2002. Accordingly, this rule is to be 
effective in less than 30 days to prevent that lapse. As noted in the 
NPRM, the current SFAR expires on December 31, 1997 and such lapse 
would be detrimental to aviation safety.

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and Joint Aviation 
Regulations

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International 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 rule does not conflict with any 
international agreement of the United States.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Information collection requirements in this rule have been approved 
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), and have been 
assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0021.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Both the executive and legislative branches of government recognize 
that economic considerations are an important factor in establishing 
regulations. Executive Order 12866 signed by President Clinton on 
September 30, 1993 requires Federal agencies to assess both the costs 
and benefits of proposed regulations and, recognizing that some costs 
and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt regulations 
only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of each regulation 
justify its costs. In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 
requires Federal agencies to determine whether or not proposed 
regulations are expected to have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, and, if so, examine feasible 
regulatory alternatives to minimize the economic burden on small 
entities. Finally, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies 
to assess the effects of proposed regulations on international trade.
    This section summarizes the FAA's economic and trade analyses, 
findings, and determinations in response to these requirements. The 
complete economic and trade analyses are contained in the docket.

Benefits

    The benefits of the final rule will be a reduction of the number of 
fatal accidents that occur in Robinson helicopters associated with low 
``G'' maneuvers that can result in main rotor contact with the 
airframe. The estimated reduction in the number of accidents is 
expected from the increased level of safety related to specific flight 
training and awareness training requirements for all individuals 
operating Robinson R-22 and R-44 aircraft.
    Between the years 1985 and 1994 there were a total of 43 fatal 
accidents involving Robinson helicopters, resulting in 63 fatalities. 
Accidents due to main rotor contact with the airframe accounted for 16 
of the 43, or approximately 37 percent of the total accidents. There 
were 26 fatalities (41 percent of all fatalities on Robinson 
helicopters) that resulted from those 16 accidents prior to the 
issuance of SFAR 73. Since the SFAR was issued in 1995, however, there 
have been no accidents or fatalities involving R-22 or R-44 aircraft 
associated with low ``G`` operations or main rotor contact with the 
airframe. Although there is not yet sufficient historical data to 
statistically demonstrate that the almost three year period of no fatal 
accidents of this type is a result of SFAR 73, it is the judgment of 
the FAA after reviewing all available information that this is the 
case.
    Assuming that SFAR 73 is effective at preventing the above types of 
rotorcraft accidents, the FAA has estimated the benefit associated with 
preventing these accidents. A value of $2.7 million was applied to each 
statistical fatality avoided. This computation resulted in an estimate 
of approximately $35.1 million in five year casualty costs. Also, the 
estimated value of the 16 destroyed aircraft was $587,000. If this 
rulemaking helps prevent the recurrence of the 26 fatalities associated 
with low ``G'' maneuvers, then expected safety benefits will be 
approximately $35.7 million (present value, $29.3 million) over five 
years, in 1996 dollars.

Costs

    In this analysis, the FAA has estimated the cost of the final rule 
over the five year period from 1998 through 2002. All of the costs 
incurred as a result of changes to existing training procedures will 
begin when the final rule becomes effective. Costs are computed in 1996 
dollars and are discounted by seven percent.
    The groups that incur costs from the final rule are rated pilots 
who aspire to be flight instructors or newly certificated flight 
instructors who desire to conduct student instruction or flight reviews 
in the Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter. In addition, students 
that receive their instruction in the R-22 or R-44, such as pilots 
adding a rotorcraft rating and new rotorcraft students, will also incur 
costs from the final rule. All the cost estimates pertaining to the 
acquisition of a rotocraft category rating are based on the minimum 
times required to receive the category rating, as published in 14 CFR 
Part 61.

Flight Instructor Costs

    Theoretically a flight instructor can acquire his or her 
certificate with as little as 50 hours of actual rotorcraft time and 
little more than 150 hours of total flight time. However, the SFAR 
established additional requirements for flight instructors who wish to 
continue to instruct or conduct flight reviews in a Robinson 
helicopter. These requirements were based on a combination of 
experience and training, which requires more than the minimum amount 
necessary for certification as an instructor. Further, additional 
flight evaluation criteria were established to ensure that the 
instructors are knowledgeable and competent to conduct the awareness 
and flight training that the FAA believes are necessary for Robinson 
helicopters. Therefore, no grandfathering was permitted for evaluators 
or flight instructors.
    While it is still possible for an individual to obtain a flight 
instructor certificate for aircraft other than Robinson helicopters in 
the minimum time required, those aspiring a flight instructor 
certificate in the Robinson model helicopters will be required to have 
an additional 50 hours of flight time. However, because some flight 
experience requirements in the model R-22 also apply to flight 
experience requirements in the R-44, a credit of up to 25 flight hours 
acquired in the model R-22 helicopter can apply to the 50 flight hour 
experience requirement for the R-44.
    For a rated pilot to become certificated as a flight instructor in 
the R-22, the pilot will need an additional 50 flight hours in the R-
22. The cost of

[[Page 664]]

the additional flight hours in the R-22 at $150 a flight hour, equals 
$7,500 per person ($150 times 50 hours). Likewise, for a rated pilot to 
become certificated as a flight instructor in the R-44, the pilot will 
need an additional 50 flight hours in the R-44 (25 hours may be done in 
a R-22). The cost for flight hours in the R-44 is $300 a flight hour. 
The additional cost of $300 per flight hour for 25 hours in a R-44 and 
$150 per flight hour for 25 hours in a R-22, equals a total of $11,250 
per person. However, for a person to become certificated as a flight 
instructor on both models of Robinson helicopters, the pilot will need 
75 additional flight hours, 50 hours in the R-22 and 25 hours in the R-
44. The added cost for 75 additional flight hours to become 
certificated in both the R-22 and the R-44 is $15,000 per person. The 
FAA assumes that a rated pilot seeking to become a flight instructor 
will want to be certificated on both models of Robinson helicopters; 
therefore, the FAA has based the cost estimate to become a flight 
instructor on the 75 additional flight hours.
    The FAA believes that the number of individuals seeking a new 
flight instructor certificate for a specific Robinson model helicopter 
is small relative to the total of new flight instructor certificates 
issued. To estimate the number of people seeking a flight instructor 
certificate for the Robinson model helicopters, the FAA determined the 
ratio of rotorcraft-only certificates held to the total airmen 
certificates held (less student and glider-only certificates). The 
ratio was then applied to the change in flight instructor certificates 
between 1995 and 1996.
    The FAA estimates that in 1996 there was the potential for 13 
individuals seeking a rotorcraft a flight instructor certificate in a 
Robinson model helicopter, based on the minimum requirements for a 
helicopter only rating. The FAA assumes in this evaluation that all 13 
of these individuals would want to qualify as flight instructors in 
Robinson model helicopters. Based on the addition of 75 flight hours at 
an added cost of $15,000 per individual, the total cost for 13 people 
seeking a rotorcraft only flight instructor certificate in a Robinson 
helicopter is approximately $189,000 annually. The estimated cost over 
the next five years is approximately $900,000 (present value, 
$800,000), in 1996 dollars.

Student Costs

    The costs encompass two classes of students: (1) Pilots that 
currently have a class certificate who wish to add a rotorcraft rating, 
and (2) new students receiving rotorcraft-only training. However, to be 
included in the cost estimate, students (new students or those adding a 
rotorcraft rating) must be receiving instruction in the Robinson model 
R-22 or R-44 helicopter.
    New students receiving instruction in the Robinson helicopters will 
be required to receive an additional five hours of dual instruction. 
Because the small size, low purchase price, and low maintenance costs 
make the R-22 attractive to flight schools, the FAA assumes that new 
students will receive their instruction in the Robinson model R-22 
helicopter. The added cost per student, assuming $165 an hour for 
instruction in the R-22, will amount to $825 (5 hours times $165 an 
hour).
    Estimation of the total added cost for all students receiving 
instruction in the Robinson helicopter was calculated in several steps. 
First, the FAA estimated the ratio of original rotorcraft certificates 
issued to original student certificates issued. That ratio was applied 
to the total student pilot certificates held in 1996, which produced an 
estimate of the number of student rotorcraft certificates held. The 
estimated student rotorcraft certificates held was multiplied by an 
estimate of the portion of new students receiving instruction on 
Robinson helicopters (about \2/3\rds). That estimate was then applied 
to the added cost per student to derive the total added cost for all 
students.
    The FAA estimates that approximately 3,300 new students will 
receive instruction in the Robinson R-22 model helicopter at an 
estimated cost of approximately $2.7 million annually. Total new 
student costs are approximately $13.5 million ($11.1 million, present 
value) over the next five years in 1996 dollars.
    Although the FAA used a higher per hour estimate for dual 
instruction, the costs reflected above are still approximately $1.3 
million less than reported in the NPRM, because more accurate data was 
supplied to the FAA regarding original rotorcraft pilot certificates 
issued. The updated data presented fewer original rotorcraft pilot 
certificates issued than what was used in the NPRM. Because there are 
few original rotorcraft pilot certificates issued, that lowers the 
ratio used as a component to calculate total added cost for all 
students, thereby lowering the cost estimate.
    Pilots that have a current class certificate who wish to add a 
rotorcraft rating and receive instruction in the Robinson helicopters 
will be required to take an additional five hours of dual instruction 
the same as new students. However, unlike the new students, the FAA 
assumes that a portion of the pilots seeking to add a rotorcraft rating 
will receive instruction in the Robinson model R-44. Therefore, in 
addition to estimating the total number of pilots seeking to add a 
rotorcraft rating in Robinson helicopters in general, the FAA estimated 
the percentage of those seeking a rating only in the R-44.
    Experienced pilots who wish to add a rotorcraft rating to a current 
class certificate could receive more advanced instruction, or 
instruction in more advanced equipment, than a new pilot. For example, 
they could receive instruction in a larger, more sophisticated turbine 
helicopter, or they could receive instruction to add the instrument 
rating to their class certicate. Therefore, the number of current 
pilots seeking to add a rotorcraft rating only in the Robinson models 
R-44 and R-22 was estimated by the FAA. First, to determine the number 
of rotorcraft ratings that apply only to the R-44, the FAA multiplied 
the ratio of R-44s to the helicopter fleet by the added rotorcraft 
ratings for 1996. To estimate the added cost of instruction in the R-
44, the number of R-44 ratings was multiplied by the number of required 
added hours of instruction, and by the R-44 cost per hour.
    Next, it was necessary to estimate the number of rotorcraft ratings 
that apply only to the R-22. As with the R-44, the added cost of the R-
22 was estimated by applying the R-22 ratings to the added rotorcraft 
ratings for 1996. The number of R-22 ratings was multiplied by the 
number of added hours of instruction and by the R-22 cost per hour. 
Finally, the two products were added together to estimate the annual 
cost for pilots to add a rotorcraft rating using a Robinson helicopter.
    The total additional cost to receive instruction in a Robinson 
helicopter for the purpose of adding a rotorcraft rating to a pilot 
certificate is approximately $90,000 annually. The estimated cost over 
the next five years is approximately $450,000 (present value, $369,000) 
in 1996 dollars.
    Although the FAA used a higher per hour estimate for dual 
instruction, the costs reflected above are still approximately $1.8 
million less than reported in the NPRM, because updated data, which 
presented fewer added rotorcraft ratings than what was used in the 
NPRM, was supplied to the FAA regarding added rotorcraft ratings. 
Because of the lower number of added rotorcraft ratings, ratios applied 
to the added rotorcraft ratings produced a lower cost estimate.

[[Page 665]]

Cost Summary

    The final rule will impose costs to the those receiving instruction 
in Robinson model R-22 and R-44 helicopters. Before they can be 
certificated, affected individuals will be required to receive 
additional model-specific training and experience for each model of 
Robinson helicopter. Individuals affected by the rule are rated pilots 
who aspire to be flight instructors or newly certificated flight 
instructors who desire to conduct student instruction or flight reviews 
in the Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter, new rotorcraft students, 
and certificated pilots seeking to add a rotorcraft rating. Both the 
new student and the pilot seeking to add a rotorcraft rating must be 
receiving instruction in a Robinson helicopter to incur the added cost. 
The final rule will impose total estimated costs of approximately $14.9 
million (present value, $12.2 million) over the next five years, in 
1996 dollars.
    All of the costs described in this analysis will be incurred 
voluntarily. These added costs are not being forced on any individual 
that wishes to receive rotorcraft training. If an individual wishes to 
avoid the additional costs of rotorcraft instruction delineated above, 
they can receive their instruction in a rotorcraft other than a 
Robinson model, and not incur any of the costs that are described in 
this analysis. However, they will not be certificated for Robinson 
model helicopters.

Comparison Of Costs And Benefits

    The rule will require those who receive or provide instruction in a 
Robinson helicopter to incur additional costs related to specific 
flight training and awareness training. The addition of these 
requirements will impose costs of approximately $14.9 million (present 
value, $12.2 million) over five years in 1996 dollars. Benefits from 
the final 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 is 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. If the final 
action prevents a repeat of the 26 fatalities that occurred during the 
past 10-year period, the estimated benefits will be $71.4 million 
($50.1 million, present value). Since this SFAR will be in effect for 
only 5 years, the estimated benefits will be $35.7 million ($29.3 
million, present value) for this rulemaking, resulting in benefits 
substantially exceeding costs.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, was 
enacted by Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily 
and disproportionately burdened by Government regulations. The Act 
requires that, whenever an agency publishes a general notice of final 
rulemaking, a regulatory flexibility analysis be done identifying the 
economic impact on small entities, and considering alternatives that 
may lessen those impacts if the final rule will have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This rule is to extend SFAR 73 published on March 1, 1995, which 
was issued on an emergency basis without the usual public notice 
period, but the FAA sought comments after issuance. No comments were 
received from small entities indicating that they suffered any adverse 
economic impact. The FAA again sought comments from small entities in 
the NPRM published November 21, 1997 to extend SFAR 73 until 2002. 
Again the FAA did not receive any comments from small entities 
indicating any adverse economic impact. Further, 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. In view of all of the above, the FAA certifies 
that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on any 
small entities.

International Trade Impact Statement

    This final rule will only impose additional costs on those 
receiving instruction on Robinson helicopters. This rule will have no 
effect on the sale of foreign aviation products or services in the 
United States, nor will it affect the sale of United States aviation 
products or services in foreign countries.
    This final rule is not expected to impose a competitive 
disadvantage to either US air carriers doing business abroad or foreign 
air carriers doing business in the United States. This final rule 
extends the SFAR and is not expected to impose any additional 
competitive disadvantage over what has already been imposed by the 
original SFAR requiring additional training in the Robinson. This 
assessment is based on the fact that several other foreign countries 
have adopted most provisions of the SFAR and that the production and 
sale of Robinson helicopters has increased over the last two years.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 
enacted as Pub. L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal 
agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment 
of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency 
rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. 
Section 204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal 
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by 
elected officers (or their designees) of State, local, and tribal 
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A 
``significant intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any 
provision in a Federal agency regulation that will impose an 
enforceable duty upon State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one 
year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section 
204(a), provides that before establishing any regulatory requirements 
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the 
agency shall have developed a plan that, among other things, provides 
for notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a 
meaningful and timely opportunity to provide input in the development 
of regulatory proposals.
    This rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental mandates, 
but does contain a private sector mandate. However, because 
expenditures by the private sector will not exceed $100 million 
annually, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 do not apply.

Federalism Implications

    The regulation herein will not have substantial direct effects on 
the States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive 
Order 12612, it is determined that this rule will not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment.

[[Page 666]]

Significance

    This rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866, nor is it 
considered significant under DOT Order 2100.5, Policies and Procedures 
for Simplification, Analysis, and Review of Regulations.

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 part 61 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 
(14 CFR part 61) as follows:

PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS AND FLIGHT 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. Paragraphs 2(b)(2), 2(b)(5), and 3 of Special Federal Aviation 
Regulation (SFAR) No. 73 to part 61 are revised to read as follows:

Special Federal Aviation Regulations

* * * * *

SFAR No. 73--Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience 
Requirements

* * * * *
    2. Required training, aeronautical experience, endorsements, and 
flight review.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) No person may act as pilot in command of a Robinson R-44 unless 
that person--
    (i) Has had at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 
flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-44. The pilot in command 
may credit up to 25 flight hours in the Robinson R-22 toward the 50 
hour requirement in the Robinson R-44; or
    (ii) Has had at least 10 hours dual instruction in a Robinson 
helicopter, at least 5 hours of which must have been accomplished in 
the Robinson R-44 helicopter and has received an endorsement from a 
certified flight instructor authorized under paragraph (b)(5) of this 
section that the individual has been given the training required by 
this paragraph and is proficient to act as pilot in command of an R-44. 
Beginning 12 calendar months after the date of the endorsement, the 
individual may not act as pilot in command unless the individual has 
completed a flight review in a Robinson R-44 within the preceding 12 
calendar months and obtained an endorsement for that flight review. The 
dual instruction must include at least the following abnormal and 
emergency procedures flight training--
    (A) Enhanced training in autorotation procedures;
    (B) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor;
    (C) Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery; and
    (D) Effects of low G maneuvers and proper recovery procedures.
* * * * *
    (5) No certificated flight instructor may provide instruction or 
conduct a flight review in a Robinson R-22 or R-44 unless that 
instructor--
    (i) Completes the awareness training in paragraph 2(a) of this 
SFAR.
    (ii) For the Robinson R-22, has had at least 200 flight hours in 
helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-
22, or for the Robinson R-44, has had at least 200 flight hours in 
helicopters, 50 flight hours of which were in Robinson helicopters. Up 
to 25 flight hours of Robinson R-22 flight time may be credited toward 
the 50 hour requirement.
    (iii) Has completed flight training in a Robinson R-22, R-44, or 
both, on the following abnormal and emergency procedures--
    (A) Enhanced training in autorotation procedures;
    (B) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor;
    (C) Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery; and
    (D) Effects of low G maneuvers and proper recovery procedures.
    (iv) Has been authorized by endorsement from an FAA aviation safety 
inspector or authorized designated examiner that the instructor has 
completed the appropriate training, meets the experience requirements 
and has satisfactorily demonstrated an ability to provide instruction 
on the general subject areas of paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR, and the 
flight training identified in paragraph 2(b)(5)(iii) of this SFAR.
* * * * *
    3. Expiration date. This SFAR expires on December 31, 2002, unless 
sooner superceded or rescinded.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 31, 1997.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-317 Filed 1-2-98; 11:47 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M