
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 102 (Friday, May 29, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25645-25650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12532]



[[Page 25646]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 61

[Docket No.: FAA-2002-13744; Amendment No. SFAR 73-2]
RIN 2120-AJ27


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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action continues the existing special training and 
experience requirements in Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 
No. 73 until the SFAR is revised or rescinded. SFAR No. 73 requires 
special training and experience for pilots operating the Robinson model 
R-22 or R-44 helicopters in order to maintain the safe operation of 
these helicopters. SFAR No. 73 also requires special training and 
experience for certified flight instructors conducting student 
instruction or flight reviews in the R-22 or R-44.

DATES: This amendment becomes effective June 29, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions about this 
final rule contact John D. Lynch, Certification and General Aviation 
Operations Branch, AFS-810, General Aviation and Commercial Division, 
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 276-
8212. For legal questions about this final rule contact Mike Chase, 
Office of Chief Counsel, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20591, telephone (202) 267-3110.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is 
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106, 
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator, including the 
authority to issue, rescind, and revise regulations. Subtitle VII, 
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's 
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Chapter 447--Safety Regulation. Under section 
44701, the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft 
in air commerce by prescribing regulations necessary for safety. Under 
section 44703, the FAA issues an airman certificate to an individual 
when we find, after investigation, that the individual is qualified 
for, and physically able to perform the duties related to, the position 
authorized by the certificate. In this final rule, we continue the 
existing special training and experience requirements in Special 
Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 73 and eliminate the termination 
date for SFAR No. 73 until further notice. This final rule ensures 
pilots have the training and experience necessary to operate these 
models of Robinson helicopters safely. For this reason, the final rule 
is within the scope of our authority and is a reasonable and necessary 
exercise of our statutory obligations.

I. Background

    Part 61 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 
61) details the certification requirements for pilots and flight 
instructors. Particular requirements for pilots and flight instructors 
in rotorcraft are found in Subparts C through G, and Appendix B of part 
61. These requirements do not address any specific type or model of 
rotorcraft. However, in 1995 the Federal Aviation Administration 
(referred to as ``we'') determined that specific training and 
experience requirements are necessary for the safe operation of 
Robinson R-22 and R-44 model helicopters.
    The R-22 is a 2-seat, reciprocating engine powered helicopter that 
is frequently used as a low-cost initial student training aircraft. The 
R-44 is a 4-seat helicopter with operating characteristics and design 
features that are similar to the R-22. The R-22 is the smallest 
helicopter in its class and incorporates a unique cyclic control and 
teetering rotor system. Certain aerodynamic and design features of the 
aircraft cause specific flight characteristics that require particular 
pilot awareness and responsiveness.
    We found the R-22 met 14 CFR part 27 certification requirements and 
issued a type certificate in 1979. The small size and relatively low 
operating costs of this helicopter made it popular as a training or 
small utility aircraft. Thus, a significant number of the pilots 
operating R-22 helicopters were relatively inexperienced. Before 
issuance of SFAR No. 73 in 1995, the Robinson R-22 experienced a higher 
number of fatal accidents due to main rotor/airframe contact than other 
piston-powered helicopters. Many of these accidents were caused by low 
rotor revolutions per minute (RPM) or low ``G'' conditions that 
resulted in mast bumping or main rotor-airframe contact accidents. 
Aviation safety authorities attributed these accidents to pilot error 
by inexperienced pilots. In our analysis of accident data prior to the 
first issuance of SFAR No. 73, we found that apparently qualified 
pilots may not be properly prepared to safely operate the R-22 and R-44 
helicopters in certain flight conditions. Accidents in the R-22 and R-
44 helicopters have declined markedly since SFAR No. 73 was issued.

II. Previous Regulatory Action

    On March 1, 1995, the FAA published SFAR No. 73 (60 FR 11256). This 
SFAR required certain experience and training to perform pilot-in-
command or certified flight instructor duties. SFAR No. 73 was issued 
on an emergency basis, with an expiration date of December 31, 1997. On 
November 21, 1997 the FAA published an NPRM (62 FR 62486) to extend 
SFAR No. 73 to December 31, 2002. The final rule (63 FR 660) extending 
SFAR No. 73 to December 31, 2002, was published on January 7, 1998. On 
November 14, 2002, the FAA published an NPRM (67 FR 69106) proposing to 
extend SFAR No. 73 an additional 5 years. On January 2, 2003, we 
reissued SFAR No. 73 (68 FR 39) and extended the rule's expiration date 
to March 31, 2008. On March 31, 2008, we extended SFAR No. 73 until 
June 30, 2009 (73 FR 17243). On August 7, 2008, we published an NPRM 
proposing to eliminate the termination date for SFAR No. 73.

III. Summary of Comments

    The FAA received 3 brief (one page) comments in response to the 
proposed rule. All the commenters acknowledged the valuable safety 
benefits of SFAR No. 73 since 1995, though one commenter thought 
continuing the SFAR was no longer necessary because of the helicopter 
community's awareness of the flight characteristics and risks of 2-
blade teetering rotor systems. Two commenters were generally supportive 
of continuing an SFAR for the R-22 and R-44 helicopters, though both 
commenters thought updating and fine tuning the regulation was needed. 
All three commenters focused on possible changes that relate to the 
separate requirements for each model that apply to both piloting and 
instructing in each model. Lowering the hours required for operating or 
training in the R-44 was suggested in the context of moving from the R-
22 model to the R-44.
    One commenter stated that since the adoption of SFAR No. 73 in 
1995, the Robinson Helicopter Company has made modifications that 
affect the R-22 and R-44 fleets. These modifications include a 
mandatory RPM governor, higher performance engines, hydraulic-

[[Page 25647]]

assisted controls, new aircraft placards, and changes to the 
limitations and normal procedures in the aircraft flight manual. 
Additionally, this commenter noted that the FAA has updated the 
Rotorcraft Flying Handbook, FAA-H8083-21, and modified the Practical 
Test Standards for the helicopter rating practical tests to provide 
emphasis on the hazards associated with low G flight, mast bumping, and 
low RPM. This commenter suggested that the FAA establish a Flight 
Standardization Board (FSB) to evaluate the current situation with 
these helicopters and make any needed amendments to the SFAR prior to 
adopting a rule without an expiration date.
    The FAA notes that none of the commenters provided any detailed 
information or data about the current fleet of R-22 and R-44 
helicopters. Similarly, none of the commenters analyzed current 
accident data for the R-22 and R-44 helicopters or provided a safety 
analysis to support their conclusions.
    In the FAA's view, the safety importance of SFAR 73 clearly has 
been demonstrated. The accident rate for the Robinson R-44 and R-22 
helicopter has declined precipitously since SFAR No. 73 was established 
in 1995. Looking at recent data, the accident records and contributing 
causes of nearly 100 Robinson R-22 accidents that occurred between 2005 
and 2008 show that none of the accidents involved mast bumping, low 
rotor RPM, or low ``G'' hazards. The additional training required by 
SFAR No. 73 addresses these specific hazards. Based on the record of 
effectiveness, even if not solely attributed to SFAR 73, the FAA has 
determined that reliance on the general awareness in the helicopter 
community of the operating issues of the R-22 and R-44 helicopters is 
not consistent with safety.
    Nor, does the FAA believe that we need to conduct another FSB for 
the R-22 and R-44 helicopters before adopting SFAR No. 73 as proposed. 
In the case of the R-22, the FAA has conducted two FSBs. At the 
conclusion of the second FSB in the early 1990s, we established the 
additional training and qualification requirements contained in SFAR 
No. 73. While modifications made by the Robinson Helicopter Company to 
the R-22 and R-44 fleets may have improved the R-22 and R-44 
helicopters, the FAA believes the additional training and qualification 
requirements in SFAR No. 73 contributed significantly to reducing the 
number and types of accidents traditionally associated with these 
helicopters.
    The FAA continues to analyze the number of Robinson R-22 and R-44 
accidents in comparison to other makes and models of helicopters. Using 
the most recent data (2007), Table 1 shows the activity level of the 
pertinent models of helicopters and number of accidents involving 
Robinson R-22 and R-44 helicopters in comparison to Schweizer 269 and 
Enstrom 280 helicopters. These types of helicopters are generally used 
in the training environment for initial pilot certification.

         Table 1--2007 General Aviation and Air Taxi Survey by Population Size, Active Helicopters, Total Flight Hours, and Average Flight Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Aircraft                  Percent        Est.       Percent                   Percent        Est.       Percent
       Helicopter make/model          population  Est. number    standard     percent      standard    Est. total    standard     average      standard
                                         size        active       error        active       error     hours flown     error        hours        error
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enstrom 280........................          143          108          0.8         75.4          0.8        6,473         12.2         60.0          9.2
Schweizer 269......................          403          366          0.4         90.7          0.4      147,936          6.0        404.7          5.4
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................  ...........          474  ...........  ...........  ...........      154,409  ...........        325.8  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-22...............................          948          863          0.5         91.1          0.5      330,883          5.3        383.2          4.8
R-44...............................        1,022          999          0.2         97.8          0.2      184,624          5.0        184.8          4.9
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................  ...........        1,862  ...........  ...........  ...........      515,507  ...........        276.9  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Enstrom 280 and Schweizer 269 Accident Rate in Comparison to the
                  Robinson R-22 and R-44 Accident Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Accident rate per
         Helicopter type               Number of       100,000 hours of
                                      accidents *      flight time flown
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enstrom 280 and Schweizer 269...                  18               11.66
Robinson R-22 and R-44..........                  54               10.48
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Accident data from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.

    The data show the accident rate for the Robinson R-22 and R-44 per 
100,000 hours of flight is 10.48. While the accident rate is slightly 
lower than the accident rate of 11.66 per 100,000 hours of flight for 
similar training helicopters, the roughly comparable accident rate has 
been achieved in the context of the special training requirements of 
SFAR 73. (If the comparison included only the R-22, which sees more use 
as a training aircraft, the accident rate for the R-22 would be higher 
than the rate for the Enstrom 280 and the Schweizer 269.) We conclude 
that the additional training and qualification requirements in SFAR No. 
73 have been a major factor leading to an improved safety record for 
the Robinson R-22 and R-44 helicopter in the training environment.
    Table 2 shows the activity level of the pertinent models of 
helicopters and contains data comparing the accident rate in the 
Robinson R-22 and R-44 helicopter to the accident rate of helicopters 
which have a similar teetering or semi-rigid rotor system (Bell 206, 
Bell 47G, and Hiller UH-12E) as the Robinson R-22 and R-44 helicopter.

[[Page 25648]]



         Table 2--2007 General Aviation and Air Taxi Survey by Population Size, Active Helicopters, Total Flight Hours, and Average Flight Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Aircraft                  Percent        Est.       Percent                   Percent        Est.       Percent
       Helicopter make/model*         population  Est. number    standard     percent      standard    Est. total    standard     average      standard
                                         size        active       error        active       error     hours flown     error        hours        error
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BH-206.............................        1,650        1,448          0.5         87.7          0.5      589,158          3.1        407.0          2.7
BH-47G.............................          615          322          1.4         52.4          1.4       41,167         13.0        127.7          6.8
UH-12E.............................          253          119          1.6         47.1          1.6       28,131         11.4        236.1          5.4
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................  ...........        1,889  ...........  ...........  ...........      658,456  ...........        348.6  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-22...............................          948          863          0.5         91.1          0.5      330,883          5.3        383.2          4.8
-44................................        1,022          999          0.2         97.8          0.2      184,624          5.0        184.8          4.9
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................  ...........        1,862  ...........  ...........  ...........      515,507  ...........        276.9  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Bell and Hiller Accident Rate in Comparison to the Robinson R-22 and R-
                            44 Accident Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Accident rate per
         Helicopter type               Number of       100,000 hours of
                                     accidents **      flight time flown
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bell and Hiller Helicopters.....                  49                7.44
Robinson R-22 and R-44..........                  54               10.48
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Bell Helicopter 206=BH-206; Bell Helicopter 47G=BH-47G; Hiller UH-
  12E=UH-12E; Robinson R-22=R-22; and Robinson R-44=R-44.
** Accident data from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.

    The data in Table 2 show the accident rate per 100,000 hours of 
flight for the Robinson R-22 and R-44 is higher than the accident rate 
of the Bell 206, Bell 47G, and Hiller UH-12E, 10.48 compared to 7.44, 
respectively. While the helicopters being compared are different in 
other ways, nothing in the data suggests a reason to reduce the 
training requirements of SFAR 73.
    The FAA is willing to work with the helicopter industry, owners of 
Robinson R-22 and R-44 helicopters, and the Robinson Helicopter Company 
to evaluate any data, information, or safety analyses provided that 
might lead to future modification of SFAR No. 73. Adopting the rule 
without a specific expiration date is not a hindrance to modifying the 
rule based on updated data and analysis. At this time, however, the FAA 
does not believe an adequate safety rationale has been developed to 
warrant specific modifications to the current requirements.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there 
is no current or new requirement for information collection associated 
with this amendment.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these regulations.

IV. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 
International Trade Impact Analysis, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires 
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small 
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. 
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. 
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of 
the economic impacts of this final rule. We suggest readers seeking 
greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we 
have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final 
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an 
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in 
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; 
(5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on 
State, local, or Tribal governments, or on the private sector by 
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized 
below.

Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule

    The final rule will require those who receive or provide 
instruction in a Robinson R-22 or R-44 helicopter to incur additional 
costs related to special training and experience requirements. These 
requirements will impose costs of

[[Page 25649]]

approximately $9.8 million (present value, $6.9 million) over 10 years 
in 2008 dollars. The potential safety benefits from the rule will be a 
reduction in the number of fatal accidents that occur in Robinson 
helicopters associated with low ``G'' maneuvers that may result in main 
rotor/airframe contact. The reduction in the number of accidents would 
be due to the increased level of safety due to specific flight training 
and awareness training requirements for all individuals operating 
Robinson R-22 and R-44 aircraft. SFAR 73 is estimated to avert 22 
fatalities associated with low ``G'' maneuvers, and the expected 
corresponding safety benefits will be approximately $129 million 
(present value, $90.6 million) over ten years, in 2008 dollars. Since 
benefits exceed costs, the FAA concludes that this rule is cost-
beneficial.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 establishes ``as a principle 
of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 
the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory 
and informational requirements to the scale of the business, 
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.'' 
To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies to solicit and 
consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for 
their actions. The Act covers a wide range of small entities, including 
small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the 
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) as 
described in the Act.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 Act provides that 
the head of the agency may so certify and an RFA is not required. The 
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for 
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    This final rule will indefinitely extend SFAR 73, initially 
published on March 1, 1995, and extended three times since. The SFAR is 
limited to experience and training requirements to perform pilot-in-
command and certified flight instructor duties, thereby impacting 
individuals rather than entities. Therefore, as the Acting FAA 
Administrator, I certify that this final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Analysis

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-463), prohibits Federal 
agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that 
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, 
such as the protection of safety, and do not operate in a manner that 
excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires 
consideration of international standards and where appropriate, that 
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA notes the purpose is to 
ensure the safety of the American public, and has assessed the effects 
of this rule to ensure it does not exclude imports that meet this 
objective. As a result, this final rule is not considered as creating 
an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100 
million.
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements 
of Title II do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this 
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the 
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 6 and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not 
a ``significant regulatory action'' under the executive order because 
it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 
12866, and DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, and it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (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


