[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69106-69108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-28963]



[[Page 69105]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Adminstration



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



14 CFR Part 61



Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training And Experience Requirements; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 69106]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 61

[Docket No. FAA-2002-13744; SFAR No. 73-1]
RIN 2120-AH94


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

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes to extend the expiration date of 
Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 73. SFAR 73 establishes 
special training and experience requirements for pilots operating the 
Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopters in order to maintain the safe 
operation of Robinson helicopters. It also proposes special training 
and experience requirements for certified flight instructors conducting 
student instruction or flight reviews.

DATES: Comments must be received by December 16, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Address your comments to the Docket Management System, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-
2002-13744 at the beginning of your comments, and you should submit two 
copies of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that FAA 
received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.
    You may also submit comments through the Internet to http://dms.dot.gov. You may review the public docket containing comments to 
these proposed regulations in person in the Dockets Office between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The 
Dockets Office is on the plaza level of the NASSIF Building at the 
Department of Transportation at the above address. Also, you may review 
public dockets on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites interested persons to 
participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or 
views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, 
energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the 
proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a 
specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any 
recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send 
us two copies of written comments.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a 
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel 
concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public 
inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to 
review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section 
of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the 
Internet at the web address in the ADDRESSES section.
    Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we 
receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider 
comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring 
expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments 
we receive.
    If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this 
proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard 
on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the 
postcard and mail it to you.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the 
following steps:
    (1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's 
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search).
    (2) On the search page type in the last five digits (13744) of the 
Docket number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on 
``search.''
    (3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information 
for the Docket you selected, click on the document number of the item 
you wish to view.
    You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the 
Office of Rulemaking's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm 
or the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
    You can also get a copy 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) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number 
of this rulemaking.

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 model helicopters.
    The R-22 is a 2-seat, reciprocating engine powered helicopter that 
is frequently used as a low-cost initial student training aircraft. The 
R-44 is a 4-seat helicopter with operating characteristics and design 
features that are similar to the R-22. The R-22 is the smallest 
helicopter in its class and incorporates a unique cyclic control and 
rotor system. Certain aerodynamic and design features of the aircraft 
cause specific flight characteristics that require particular pilot 
awareness and responsiveness.
    The FAA found that the R-22 met 14 CFR part 27 certification 
requirements and issued a type certificate in 1979. The small size and 
relatively low operating costs of this helicopter made it popular as a 
training or small utility aircraft. Thus, a significant number of the 
pilots operating R-22 helicopters were relatively inexperienced. Prior 
to issuance of SFAR 73, the Robinson R-22 experienced a higher number 
of fatal accidents due to main rotor/airframe contact than other 
piston-powered helicopters. Many of these accidents were caused by low 
rotor revolutions per minute (RPM) or low ``G'' conditions that 
resulted in mast bumping or main rotor-airframe contact accidents. 
Aviation safety authorities attributed this to pilot error by 
inexperienced pilots.
    In its analysis of accident data, the FAA 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 FAA has 
determined that additional pilot training, originally established by 
SFAR 73, as modified in SFAR 73-1, continues to be needed for the safe 
operation of these helicopters.

[[Page 69107]]

Previous Regulatory Action

    To address the safety issues, on March 1, 1995, the FAA published 
SFAR 73 (60 FR 11256). This SFAR required certain experience and 
training to perform pilot-in-command (PIC) and/or certified flight 
instructor (CFI) duties. SFAR 73 was issued on an emergency basis, with 
an expiration date of December 31, 1997. On November 21, 1997 (62 FR 
62486), the FAA published an NPRM to extend SFAR 73 to December 31, 
2002, with a minor amendment. The Final Rule extending SFAR 73 to 
December 31, 2002 was published on January 7, 1998 (63 FR 660).

Why the FAA Is Proposing To Extend SFAR 73

    Since the issuance of SFAR 73, there has been a drop in the 
accident rate of Robinson helicopters associated with low ``G'' 
manuevers (low rotor RPM) resulting in main rotor/tailboom contact. 
Between the publication of SFAR 73 in 1995 and the first extension of 
the SFAR in 1997 no accidents occurred in the R-22 or R-44 that were 
related to low rotor RPM and tailboom/main rotor contact. There have 
been two accidents since the first extension in 1997. The FAA believes 
that SFAR 73 has been effective in improving the safe operation of 
these helicopters.
    The FAA has taken several steps to permanently improve the safety 
of Robinson helicopters. The FAA has improved the airworthiness of the 
R-22 and R-44 through the issuance of a number of airworthiness 
directives. The FAA is also working on regulations and policies to 
govern pilot and certified flight instructor training and experience, 
based on the experience gained from SFAR 73. The FAA intends to fully 
implement these regulations and policies prior to 2007. In the 
meantime, the FAA believes that the additional training required by 
SFAR 73 is necessary for safety. The FAA therefore proposes to extend 
the expiration date of SFAR 73 for 5 years.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several 
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that a Federal 
agency may 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 requires agencies 
to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. 
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) 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 for U.S. 
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 
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).
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this proposed 
rule: (1) Would generate benefits that exceed costs, is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (2) would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (3) would 
not constitute a barrier to international trade; and does not impose an 
unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the 
private sector.
    This proposed rule would extend the requirements of SFAR 73-1, 
which will expire on December 31, 2002, for an additional 5 years. It 
would impose costs on those receiving instruction in Robinson model R-
22 and R-44 helicopters. Before they can be certificated, affected 
individuals would be required to receive additional model-specific 
training and experience for each model of Robinson helicopter. The 
individuals affected include flight instructors and students seeking to 
be certified to operate Robinson model helicopters. These individuals 
can avoid the costs of this proposed rule by receiving their 
instruction in a helicopter other than a Robinson model. However, they 
would not be certificated for Robinson model helicopters.
    Regarding benefits, the adoption of this proposal would continue 
the observed reduction in 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. Prior to the issuance 
of SFAR 73 there were 15 accidents and 24 fatalities due to main rotor 
contact with the airframe. Since the SFAR was issued in 1995, however, 
there have been only two accidents and only one fatality involving R-22 
or R-44 aircraft associated with low ``G'' operations and main rotor 
contact with the airframe.
    Even though two accidents involving low ``G'' operations have 
occurred since SFAR 73 was extended in 1997, the FAA finds that the 
potential safety benefits still exceed costs and justify the adoption 
of this proposed rule. The FAA seeks public comments regarding these 
benefits and costs.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 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 RFA requires agencies to 
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the 
rationale for their actions. The RFA 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 agency determines that it will, the 
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in 
the RFA.
    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 RFA provides that the 
head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis 
is not required. The certification must include a statement providing 
the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    This proposed rule would require students and rated pilots seeking 
to conduct student instructions or flight reviews in a Robinson 
helicopter to incur added costs. Thus, the requirements of the SFAR 
impact individuals rather than entities. For these reasons, the FAA 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small operators. The FAA seeks public comments 
regarding this finding.

Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that 
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as

[[Page 69108]]

safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    The NPRM proposes to impose costs on those receiving instruction on 
Robinson helicopters. These costs have been in effect for almost seven 
years and apparently have not affected sales of the aircraft. The FAA 
has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined 
that it would have a neutral impact on foreign trade and, therefore, 
create no obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) is intended, 
among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal 
mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act 
requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing 
the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule 
that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted 
annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.''
    This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. The 
requirements of Title II do not apply.

Federalism Implications

    The SFAR proposed herein will not have substantial direct effects 
on the states, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with 
Executive Order 12866, it is determined that this proposed rule does 
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation 
of a Federalism Assessment.

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 proposed rule does not conflict with 
any international agreement of the United States.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The OMB control number assigned to the collection of information 
for this proposed rule is 2120-0021.

Conclusion

    For the reasons previously discussed in the preamble, the FAA has 
determined that this SFAR is not significant under Executive Order 
12866. Based on the findings in the Regulatory Flexibility 
Determination and the International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA 
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities 
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This SFAR is not 
considered significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 
FR 11034; February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 61

    Aircraft, Aircraft pilots, Airmen, Airplanes, Air safety, Air 
transportation, Aviation safety, Balloons, Helicopters, Rotorcraft, 
Students.

The Proposal

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend part 61 of Title 14 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 61) as follows:

PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND 
INSTRUCTORS

    1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:


    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-
44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

    2. Revise section 3 of SFAR No. 73 to read as follows:

Special Federal Aviation Regulations

* * * * *

Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 73--Robinson R-22/R-44 Special 
Training and Experience Requirements

* * * * *
    3. Expiration date. This SFAR terminates on December 31, 2007, 
unless sooner superceded or rescinded.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 7, 2002.
Louis C. Cusimano,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 02-28963 Filed 11-8-02; 4:17 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P