[Federal Register: May 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 102)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25646-25650]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29my09-8]
[[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No. 73 until the SFAR is revised or rescinded.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 (http://
www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with
[[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 http://www.faa.gov/
regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 61
Aircraft, Aircraft pilots, Airmen, Airplanes, Air safety, Air
transportation, Aviation safety, Balloons, Helicopters, Rotorcraft,
Students.
The Amendment
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