[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 18, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45092-45095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21378]
[[Page 45091]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 27
Normal Category Rotorcraft Maximum Weight and Passenger Seat
Limitation; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 18, 1999 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 45092]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 27
[Docket No. 29247; Amendment No. 27-37]
RIN 2120-AF33
Normal Category Rotorcraft Maximum Weight and Passenger Seat
Limitation
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the airworthiness standards for normal
category rotorcraft. This rule increases the maximum weight limit from
6,000 to 7,000 pounds, updates the safety standards, and adds a
passenger seat limitation of nine. These changes offset the increased
weight imposed by additional requirements such as recent requirements
to improve occupant survivability in the event of an accident.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 18, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lance Gant, Rotorcraft Standards
Staff, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Fort
Worth, Texas 76193-0110, telephone (817) 222-5114, fax 817-222-5959.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Final Rules
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section
of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-
3339), or the Government Printing Office's (GPO) electronic bulletin
board service (telephone: 202-215-1661).
Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/
avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the GPO's web page at http://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara for access to recently published rulemaking
documents.
Any person may obtain a copy of this final rule by submitting a
request to the FAA, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.
Communications must identify the amendment number or docket number of
this final rule.
Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future
Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs) and Final Rules should request
from ARM-1 a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.
Small Entity Inquiries
If your organization is a small entity and you 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
(FAA), 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, 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 inquires to the following Internet address: 9-AWA-
[email protected]
Background
This final rule is based on NPRM No. 98-4 published in the Federal
Register on June 25, 1998 (63 FR 34610). That notice proposed to amend
the airworthiness standards for normal category rotorcraft, 14 CFR part
27 (part 27), based on ARAC recommendations.
A previous notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 4221, January 20,
1995) established the ARAC Gross Weight and Passenger Issues for
Rotorcraft Working Group (GWWG). The notice tasked the GWWG to
determine the appropriate course of action for increasing the maximum
weight and passenger seat limitations for normal category rotorcraft.
The GWWG included representatives from manufacturers. Aerospace
Industries Association of America (AIA), the European Association of
Aerospace Industries (AECMA), the European Joint Aviation Authorities
(JAA), Transport Canada, and the FAA Rotorcraft Directorate.
The GWWG submitted recommendations to increase the maximum gross
weight limitation to 7,000 pounds and to add a passenger seat
limitation of nine. The changes compensate for the increases in weight
resulting from additional part 27 requirements and operational and
design trends. An increase in maximum weight to 7,000 pounds will allow
the design and production of helicopters to carry nine passengers.
The GWWG recommended additional requirements to part 27 to support
a potential increase of passengers if the changes (1) related to safety
for additional passengers, (2) related to safety for increased weight,
or (3) resulted in little or no increase in cost of weight.
The GWWG made the following the following recommendations regarding
previously certificate rotorcraft: (1) Limit certification to seven
passengers (regardless of maximum weight), (2) permit an increase in
passengers only if the applicant revises the certification basis and
complies with part 27 at this amendment level, and (3) permit an
applicant to increase the rotorcraft maximum weight above 6,000 pounds
if the seating capacity remains as certificated on October 18, 1999.
The GWWG made the preceding recommendations to the ARAC. The ARAC
recommended that the FAA revise the normal category rotorcraft
airworthiness standards. The JAA will harmonize the Joint Aviation
Requirements (JAR) concurrently with this final rule. The FAA evaluated
the ARAC recommendations, made its proposals in NPRM 98-4, and invited
comments.
Discussion of Comments
The FAA considered comments from all four commenters. Two
commenters favored adopting the rule as proposed. Two other commenters
agreed that rule changes were needed but offered the following
comments:
One commenter asked why part 27 did not allow a weight limit of
12,500 pounds as does part 23. Allowing a weight limit of 12,500 pounds
is beyond the scope of the current rulemaking. The FAA has not ruled
out future action to further increase the normal category weight limit.
However, further increases in weight limit may necessitate additional
requirements to part 27 to maintain an acceptable level of safety.
The commenter wanted the rule to require crash resistant fuel
cells. The FAA agrees that crash resistant fuel cells enhance safety
and currently requires crash resistant fuel systems for rotorcraft
certificated to Amendment 27-30 dated October 2, 1994 (59 FR 50386).
The commenter stated that the sentence ``This must be shown by
test'' proposed in Sec. 27.805(b) was open to interpretation. The FAA
disagrees. This language mirrors Sec. 29.805(b) in effect since
February 25, 1968. To date, there has been no confusion as to its
interpretation. Advisory material covering this requirement is readily
available. The words ``This must be shown by test'' mean that emergency
evacuations must be physically performed during type certification
testing.
The commenter stated, ``The inclusion of as many exit routes as
possible would be nice, but things such as rotor clearance (in the case
of a top hatch) would need addressing.'' The FAA agrees that a thorough
evaluation of any crew emergency exit configuration is needed. An
evaluation of the location of the exits in
[[Page 45093]]
determining compliance with Sec. 27.805, paragraphs (a) and (b), would
include consideration of possible obstructions that may render an exit
unusable or hazardous, for example, the proximity of the main rotor in
the case of a top hatch.
The commenter further suggested using wording similar to part 23
for pilot compartment emergency exits in Sec. 27.805. The wording
proposed by the FAA in Sec. 27.805, paragraphs (a) and (b) is similar
to the wording in Sec. 23.805, paragraphs (a) and (b). The remainder of
proposed Sec. 27.805 is the same as part 23 and only diverges to
address differences in aircraft category. Therefore, Sec. 27.805 is
adopted as proposed.
Another commenter suggested adding the word ``on'' after ``of this
part in effect'' in Sec. 27.2(b)(1) and deleting the word
``previously'' in Sec. 27.2(b)(2)(i). The FAA agrees and has
incorporated the nonsubstantive changes.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), there are no requirements for information collection
associated with this final rule.
International Compatibility
The FAA has reviewed corresponding International Civil Aviation
Organization international standards and recommended practices and JAA
regulations, where they exist, and has identified no material
differences in these amendments and the foreign regulations.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
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 requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effects
of regulatory changes on international trade. And 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). In conducting these analyses, the
FAA has determined that this final rule: (1) generates benefits that
justify its costs and is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as
defined in Executive Order 12866 or as defined in DOT's Regulatory
Policies and Procedures; (2) does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities; (3) has minimal
effects on international trade; and (4) does not contain a significant
intergovernmental or private sector mandate. These analyses, available
in the docket, are summarized as follows.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
The final rule adds passenger safety related requirements
commensurate with allowing some rotorcraft to increase passenger
capacity. With one exception, no part 29 rotorcraft currently being
manufactured has a maximum gross weight of fewer than 7,000 pounds. As
the cost per pound per mile decreases as the load approaches a
rotorcraft's maximum carrying capacity, the absence of part 29
rotorcraft in the 6,000 pound to 7,000 pound range indicates that this
gap will be filled more efficiently by rotorcraft certificated under
part 27. This final rule permits part 27 rotorcraft to fill this gap
and to provide cost savings to some manufacturers and operators. It
also eliminates an applicant's need to apply for an exemption to the
maximum weight requirement for a future part 27 type certificate and
thereby saves between $10,000 and $18,000 in paperwork costs per
eliminated exemption application. In addition, it eliminates the FAA's
time and resources to review and to process the exemption application.
Thus, the FAA concludes that this final rule imposes no or negligible
compliance costs and will generate some cost savings.
Safety benefits will arise as manufacturers develop new, heavier
part 27 rotorcraft (that will be certificated based on the most recent
part 27 standards) to replace some older part 27 certificated models.
The increased weight also benefits some part 27 Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) rotorcraft that now must limit fuel loads and/or their
effective ranges in order to carry all of the necessary medical
equipment while remaining under the 6,000-pound maximum weight.
Finally, the increased allowable payload weight may permit the
transport of more than one victim, an important consideration for more
rapid transportation when there are multiple victims and only one
available EMS rotorcraft.
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 finds that it will, the
agency must prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) as
described in the Act.
The FAA conducted the required review of this revised rule and
determined that it does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The revised rule is expected to
produce annualized incremental cost savings of $10,000 to $18,000 per
applicant. While this would be beneficial to a rotorcraft manufacturer,
it does not affect either the competitiveness or solvency of any small
business. Accordingly, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 605(b), the FAA certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
Consistent with the Administration's belief in the general
superiority, desirability, and efficacy of free trade, it is the policy
of the Administrator to remove or diminish, to the extent feasible,
barriers to international trade, including both barriers affecting the
export of American goods and services to foreign countries and those
affecting the import of foreign goods and services into the United
States.
In accordance with that policy, the FAA is committed to develop as
much as possible its aviation standards and practices in harmony with
its trading partners. Significant cost savings can result from this,
both to American companies doing business in foreign markets, and
foreign companies doing business in the United States.
This final rule is harmonized with the JAR and will thereby reduce
differences between U.S., European, and Canadian
[[Page 45094]]
airworthiness standards and will reduce barriers to trade.
Federalism Implications
The regulations herein would 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 would not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of the Federalism
Assessment.
Unfunded Mandates 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 by 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.
The FAA determines that this rule will not contain a significant
intergovernmental or private sector mandate as defined by the Act.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1D defines actions that may be categorically
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. In
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this
rulemaking action qualifies for a categorical exclusion.
Energy Impact
The energy impact of the rulemaking action has been assessed in
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and
Public Law 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362). It has been determined
that it is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of the
EPCA.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 27
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Rotorcraft, Safety.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends part 27 of Chapter 1, Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
1. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
2. Revise Sec. 27.1(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1 Applicability.
(a) This part prescribes airworthiness standards for the issue of
type certificates, and changes to those certificates, for normal
category rotorcraft with maximum weights of 7,000 pounds or less and
nine or less passenger seats.
* * * * *
3. Amend Sec. 27.2 by redesignating the introductory text and
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) introductory text, (d)(1), and (d)(2) as
paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4)
introductory text, and (a)(4)(i) and (a)(4)(ii) respectively and adding
a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.2 Special retroactive requirements.
* * * * *
(b) For rotorcraft with a certification basis established prior to
October 18, 1999--
(1) The maximum passenger seat capacity may be increased to eight
or nine provided the applicant shows compliance with all the
airworthiness requirements of this part in effect on October 18, 1999.
(2) The maximum weight may be increased to greater than 6,000
pounds provided--
(i) The number of passenger seats is not increased above the
maximum number certificated on October 18, 1999, or
(ii) The applicant shows compliance with all of the airworthiness
requirements of this part in effect on October 18, 1999.
4. Amend Sec. 27.610 by revising the section heading and by adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.610 Lightning and static electricity protection.
* * * * *
(d) The electrical bonding and protection against lightning and
static electricity must--
(1) Minimize the accumulation of electrostatic charge;
(2) Minimize the risk of electric shock to crew, passengers, and
service and maintenance personnel using normal precautions;
(3) Provide an electrical return path, under both normal and fault
conditions, on rotorcraft having grounded electrical systems; and
(4) Reduce to an acceptable level the effects of lightning and
static electricity on the functioning of essential electrical and
electronic equipment.
5. Add Sec. 27.805 to read as follows:
Sec. 27.805 Flight crew emergency exits.
(a) For rotorcraft with passenger emergency exits that are not
convenient to the flight crew, there must be flight crew emergency
exits, on both sides of the rotorcraft or as a top hatch in the flight
crew area.
(b) Each flight crew emergency exit must be of sufficient size and
must be located so as to allow rapid evacuation of the flight crew.
This must be shown by test.
(c) Each flight crew emergency exit must not be obstructed by water
or flotation devices after an emergency landing on water. This must be
shown by test, demonstration, or analysis.
6. Revise Sec. 27.807 to read as follows:
Sec. 27.807 Emergency exits.
(a) Number and Location.
(1) There must be at least one emergency exit on each side of the
cabin readily accessible to each passenger. One of these exits must be
usable in any probable attitude that may result from a crash;
(2) Doors intended for normal use may also serve as emergency
exits, provided that they meet the requirements of this section; and
(3) If emergency flotation devices are installed, there must be an
emergency exit accessible to each passenger on each side of the cabin
that is shown by test, demonstration, or analysis to;
(i) Be above the waterline; and
[[Page 45095]]
(ii) Open without interference from flotation devices, whether
stowed or deployed.
(b) Type and operation. Each emergency exit prescribed by paragraph
(a) of this section must--
(1) Consist of a movable window or panel, or additional external
door, providing an unobstructed opening that will admit a 19-by 26-inch
ellipse;
(2) Have simple and obvious methods of opening, from the inside and
from the outside, which do not require exceptional effort;
(3) Be arranged and marked so as to be readily located and opened
even in darkness; and
(4) Be reasonably protected from jamming by fuselage deformation.
(c) Tests. The proper functioning of each emergency exit must be
shown by test.
(d) Ditching emergency exits for passengers. If certification with
ditching provisions is requested, the markings required by paragraph
(b)(3) of this section must be designed to remain visible if the
rotorcraft is capsized and the cabin is submerged.
Sec. 27.853 [Amended]
7. Amend Sec. 27.853 in paragraph (a) by removing the word
``flash'' and inserting the word ``flame'' in its place and by removing
and reserving paragraph (b).
8. Section 27.1027 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (a)
through (d) as paragraphs (b) through (e); in redesignated paragraph
(c)(2), by removing ``(b)(3)'' and adding ``(c)(3)'' in its place; in
redesignated paragraph (d) by removing ``(b)'' each place it appears
and adding ``(c); and by adding a new paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1027 Transmissions and gearboxes: General.
(a) The lubrication system for components of the rotor drive system
that require continuous lubrication must be sufficiently independent of
the lubrication systems of the engine(s) to ensure lubrication during
autorotation.
* * * * *
9. In Sec. 27.1185, a new paragraph (d) is added to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.1185 Flammable fluids.
* * * * *
(d) Absorbent materials close to flammable fluid system components
that might leak must be covered or treated to prevent the absorption of
hazardous quantities of fluids.
10. Revise Sec. 27.1187 to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1187 Ventilation and drainage.
Each compartment containing any part of the powerplant installation
must have provision for ventilation and drainage of flammable fluids.
The drainage means must be--
(a) Effective under conditions expected to prevail when drainage is
needed, and
(b) Arranged so that no discharged fluid will cause an additional
fire hazard.
11. In Sec. 27.1305, add a new paragraph (v) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1305 Powrplant instruments.
* * * * *
(v) Warning or caution devices to signal to the flight crew when
ferromagnetic particles are detected by the chip detector required by
Sec. 27.1337(e).
12. Revise Sec. 27.1337(e) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1337 Powerplant instruments.
* * * * *
(e) Rotor drive system transmissions and gearboxes utilizing
ferromagnetic materials must be equipped with chip detectors designed
to indicate the presence of ferromagnetic particles resulting from
damage or excessive wear. Chip detectors must--
(1) Be designed to provide a signal to the device required by
Sec. 27.1305(v) and be provided with a means to allow crewmembers to
check, in flight, the function of each detector electrical circuit and
signal.
(2) [Reserved]
Issued in Washington, DC on August 12, 1999.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-21378 Filed 8-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
