[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 155 (Wednesday, August 12, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43282-43285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21609]
[[Page 43281]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Parts 27 and 29
Harmonization of Miscellaneous Rotorcraft Regulations; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 1998 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 43282]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 27 and 29
[Docket No. 28929; Amendment Nos. 27-35 & 29-42]
RIN 2120-AG23
Harmonization of Miscellaneous Rotorcraft Regulations
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is amending the airworthiness standards for normal and
transport category rotorcraft. The changes amend the airworthiness
standards to require a cockpit indication of autopilot operating mode
to the pilots for certain autopilot configurations, to clarify the burn
test requirements for electrical wiring for transport category
rotorcraft, and to provide a new requirement for an electrical wire
burn test for normal category rotorcraft. The rule also adds a 1.33
fitting factor structural strength requirement to the attachment of
litters and berths.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carroll Wright, Regulations Group,
Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, Worth,
Texas 76193-0111, telephone number (817) 222-5120, fax (817) 222-5961.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Final Rules
Using a moderm and suitable communications software, an electronic
copy of this document may be downloaded from the FAA regulations
section of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone:
703-321-3339), the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service
(telephone: 202-512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (ARAC) Bulletin Board service (telephone: 800-322-2722 or
202-267-5948).
Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/
avr/arm/nprm/nprm/htm or the Federal Register webpage at http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs/aces/aces 140.html for access to recently
published rulemaking documents.
Any person may obtain a coy of this final rule by submitting a
request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
calling 202-267-9680. Communications must identify the amendment number
of docket number of this final rule.
Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future
Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NRPMs) and Final Rules should request
from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, NPRM
Distribution System, that describes the application procedure.
Small Entity Inquiries
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA) requires the FAA to report inquiries from small entities
concerning information on, and advice about, compliance with statutes
and regulations within the FAA's jurisdiction, including interpretation
and application of the law to specific sets of facts supplied by a
small entity.
If you are a small entity and have a question, contact your local
FAA official. If you do not know how to contact your local FAA
official, you may contact Charlene Brown, Program Analyst Staff, Office
of Rulemaking, ARM-27, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, 1-888-551-1594.
Internet users can find additional information on SBREFA in the ``Quick
Jump'' section of the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov and may send
electronic inquiries to the following internet address: 9-AWA-
[email protected]
Background
These amendments are based on NPRM No. 97-8 published in the
Federal Register on June 9, 1997 (62 FR 31475). That notice proposed to
amend the airworthiness standards for both normal and transport
category rotorcraft based on recommendations from the ARAC. By
announcement in the Federal Register (60 FR 4221, January 20, 1995),
the ``Harmonization of Miscellaneous Rotorcraft Regulations Working
Group'' was chartered by the ARAC. The working group included
representatives from the major rotorcraft manufacturers (normal and
transport) and representatives from Aerospace Industries Association of
America, Inc. (AIA), Association Europeene des Constructeurs de
Material Aerospatial (AECMA), Helicopter Association International
(HAI), Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Rotorcraft Directorate. This broad participation
is consistent with FAA policy to have all known interested parties
involved as early as practicable in the rulemaking process.
On January 9, 1996, the Miscellaneous Harmonization Working Group
submitted recommendations to the ARAC concerning the need (1) to
provide a cockpit indication of autopilot operating mode to the pilots
for certain autopilot configurations, (2) to clarify the burn test
requirements for electrical wiring for transport category rotorcraft,
(3) to provide a new requirement for an electrical wire burn test for
normal category rotorcraft, and (4) to add a 1.33 fitting factor
structural strength requirement to the attachment of litters and
berths. The working group also submitted recommendations to ARAC
concerning the disharmonizations introduced by the new Rotorcraft 30
Second/2 Minute One-Engine Inoperative Power Ratings (OEI) (59 FR
47764; September 16, 1994) and the Crash Resistant Fuel Systems (CRFS)
in Normal and Transport Category Rotorcraft (59 FR 50380; October 3,
1994) final rules.
The ARAC reviewed the working group recommendations and
subsequently recommended that the FAA revise the airworthiness
standards for normal and transport category rotorcraft to incorporate
the miscellaneous changes. The changes to 14 CFR parts 27 and 29 (parts
27 and 29) are harmonized with the European Joint Aviation Requirements
(JAR) 27 and 29.
The FAA evaluated the ARAC recommendations and made its proposals
in NPRM 97-8. The FAA received two comments to the proposed
miscellaneous changes.
Discussion of Comments
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of these amendments. Due consideration was given to the
comments received from the two commenters. One commenter representing
HAI was fully supportive of the proposed changes.
Another commenter recommended changes to the proposed part 27
electrical wire burn test requirements. This commenter does not believe
self-extinguishing wire is required for low amperage installation and
requested the following wording be added to Sec. 27.1365: ``* * * To
require self-extinguishing installation of electrical wire and cable
larger than 18 gauge and carrying current draws of over 5 amps per
wire. Multi-strand cable with over 4 strands in a closed cable sheave
are exempt from this requirement * * *'' The FAA does not agree to
exempt multi-strand wires or 18 gauge wires or smaller. Any wire,
regardless of size or number of strands, may constitute a fire hazard.
Small gauge wires may be
[[Page 43283]]
routed in wire bundles with larger gauge wires. Any fire in the wire
bundle would be fueled by nonself-extinguishing wire and thereby defeat
the purpose of the rule.
After considering all of the comments, the FAA has determined that
air safety and the public interest require adoption of the amendments
are proposed.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Sec. 3507(d)), there are no requirements for information collection
associated with this final use.
International Compatibility
The FAA has determined that a review of the Convention on
International Civil Aviation Standards and Recommended Practices is not
warranted because there is not a comparable rule under International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Proposed 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 (RFA) 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 rule: (1) will generate
benefits that justify its costs and is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' as defined in the Executive Order; (2) is not ``significant''
as defined as DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (3) will not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(4) will lessen restraints on international trade; and (5) does not
contain a significant intergovernmental or private sector mandate.
These analyses, available in the docket, are summarized below.
Economic Evaluation
The revisions will impose no incremental costs on the larger
manufacturers that produce both part 27 and 29 rotorcraft. For smaller
manufacturers producing only part 27 rotorcraft, there will be
incremental costs totalling approximately $60,000 (nondiscounted 1997
dollars) per type certification. For some manufacturers of specialized
equipment in part 27 rotorcraft, incremental cost could equal an
additional $500 per rotorcraft. Overall, the changes will increase
safety and promote harmonization between FAA and JAA regulations.
Harmonization will eliminate unnecessary duplication of certification
requirements (e.g., testing/design), thus reducing manufacturers'
costs.
The costs and benefits of the changes regarding the fitting factor
for berths and litters, removal of the phrase ``unless a rollover is
shown to be extremely remote'' (in Secs. 27.975(b) and 29.975(a)(7)),
autopilot operating mode, and burn test for electrical wire in normal
category rotorcraft are summarized below. All other revisions involve
minor clarifications or administrative changes.
The fitting factor requirement will not impose incremental costs on
most rotorcraft manufacturers. One small manufacturer of part 27
rotorcraft indicated additional nonrecurring testing and analysis costs
of $2,100 to substantiate the 1.33 factor in an initial new type
certification; most likely, this additional cost will not be incurred
in subsequent type certification. Although there have been no
identifiable accidents involving litters attributable to insufficient
attachment strength, even one minor injury will far exceed the
relatively low costs. Codification of the 1.33 fitting factor, which is
inherent in most current designs, will ensure that all future designs
include this standard, increasing the minimum level of safety.
There will be no incremental costs or benefits associated with
removal of the phrase ``unless a rollover is shown to be extremely
remote'' in Secs. 27.975(b) and 29.975(a)(7) since rotorcraft currently
meet the minimum fuel spillage requirements of these sections.
The autopilot display requirement will not impose any incremental
costs on rotorcraft manufacturers since new autopilot systems employed
in rotorcraft are identical to those in airplanes and the mode
indicator in now integral to such system. Codification of this
requirement will ensure that all future rotorcraft designs comply with
this standard.
Most U.S. and European manufacturers currently use electrical wire
that meets the burn test requirements for transport category rotorcraft
since they produce both parts 27 and 29 rotocraft. However, the few
manufacturers that produce normal category rotorcraft only will likely
experience additional costs. One manufacturer estimates additional
nonrecurring testing/design costs at $5,300 per type certification and
additional wiring costs of $530 per rotorcraft. At an estimated
production of seven rotorcraft per year, the incremental recurring
costs will total $3,710 per year for ten years, or $37,100 total
(nondiscounted 1997 dollars), under one type certification. Another
manufacturer estimates additional wiring costs of $370 per rotorcraft
and no additional nonrecurring costs. At an estimated production of 20
rotorcraft per year, the incremental recurring costs will total $7,400
per year ten years, or $74,000 total (nondiscounted 1997 dollars),
under one type certification. Averaging the incremental costs for these
two manufacturers results in an estimate of approximately $58,200 per
type certification (135 units produced at approximately $430 per unit).
Part 27 rotorcraft which will be used in specialized operations may
require somewhat more expensive wiring to meet the new burn test
requirements. The second commenter to the notice alluded to earlier (a
manufacturer of fire-fighting systems) indicates that meeting the new
standards will result in a 5 percent increase in the selling price of
its system, or $900 per unit. A manufacturer of agricultural spraying
systems, however, indicates increased per system costs of only a
fraction of one percent, equating to $100 per unit. Since both of these
systems represent the type of add-on electrical system potentially
affected by the wiring provision, using the average of the two
estimates, or $500, is appropriate. Assuming 20 of the new production
rotorcraft (about 15%) will be equipped with the add-on systems, the
additional incremental costs total $10,000.
Examination of National Transportation Safety Board accident data
for the period 1983 through 1995 indicates several rotorcraft accidents
and incidents in which the electrical system was cited as a cause or
contribute factor. One accident (in June 1994) was primarily caused by
an electrical short in the wiring which burned a hole in the main fuel
line, causing a post-impact fire that destroyed the part 27 helicopter.
The FAA believes that the revised burn test requirements could have
prevented this accident. If
[[Page 43284]]
the rule prevents one such accident during the operating lives (25-
years) of rotorcraft produced under one part 27 type certification, the
rule will be cost-beneficial: Replacement costs of a substantially-
damaged rotorcraft equals $125,000 (this benefit alone will exceed the
total costs of approximately $70,000); adding cumulative damage from
two or three minor incidents (say $20,000 to $30,000) and potential
harmonization cost savings ($50,000, based on estimates from previous
harmonized rotorcraft rules) increases the benefits to approximately
$200,000, which is almost three times the costs. If one serious injury
(valued at over $500,000) is prevented, the benefits of the rule would
be several times the estimated costs.
In addition, codification of those requirements complied with
indirectly (i.e., as a result of complying with other provisions) or
``voluntarily'' (by virture of competitive pressures) will ensure
continuation of enhanced safety levels in future rotorcraft designs.
Based on the findings of no significant incremental costs coupled
with the benefits of harmonization savings and higher levels of safety,
the FAA has determined that the rule will be cost-beneficial.
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 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 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 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 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.
For manufacturers, a small entity is one with 1,500 or fewer
employees. Only five rotorcraft have 1,500 or fewer employees and
therefore qualify as small entities. However, three of these are not
currently producing new type-certificated rotocraft, and another does
not compete with the larger manufacturers. Consequently, only one
producer could potentially be impacted by this rule. However the
annualized increased certification costs for a rotorcraft manufacturer
(based on the average incremental costs of the wiring requirements as
reported by the two manufacturers, added to the costs to comply with
the fitting factor requirements) equals approximately $4,400 per type
certification, which is not considered significant within the meaning
of the RFA. Consequently, the FAA certifies that the rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
rotorcraft manufacturers.
The two manufacturers of specialized component systems described
earlier are also small entities; notwithstanding, the average $500
incremental cost can easily be passed on to purchasers given the
inelastic demand for such specialized rotorcraft systems. There is not
a substantial number of other rotorcraft systems. There is not a
substantial number of other rotorcraft parts manufacturers that will be
impacted by this rule. Consequently, the FAA certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small rotorcraft parts manufacturers.
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 rule is a direct action to respond to this policy by
increasing the harmonization of the U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations
with the European Joint Aviation Requirements. The result will be a
positive step toward removing impediments to international trade.
Federalism Implications
The regulations herein will not have substantial direct effects on
the states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 12612, it is determined that this rule will not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
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 of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency
rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
government, 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 determined that this rule does not contain a significant
intergovernmental or private sector mandate as defined by the Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 27 and 29
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Rotorcraft, Safety.
[[Page 43285]]
The Amendments
Accordingly, the FAA amends 14 CFR parts 27 and 29 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. In Sec. 27.625, a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 27.625 Fitting factors.
* * * * *
(d) Each seat, berth, litter, safety belt, and harness attachment
to the structure must be shown by analysis, tests, or both, to be able
to withstand the inertia forces prescribed in Sec. 27.561(b)(3)
multiplied by a fitting factor of 1.33.
3. Section 27.785 is amended by revising the heading and by adding
a new sentence to the end of paragraph (k)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.785 Seats, berths, litters, safety belts, and harnesses.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(2) * * * The fitting factor required by Sec. 27.625(d) shall be
applied.
Sec. 27.975 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 27.975, paragraph (b) is amended by removing the
words``, unless a rollover is shown to be extremely remote''.
5. In Sec. 27.1329, a new paragraph (f) is added to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.1329 Automatic pilot system.
* * * * *
(f) If the automatic pilot system can be coupled to airborne
navigation equipment, means must be provided to indicate to the pilots
the current mode of operation. Selector switch position is not
acceptable as a means of indication.
6. In Sec. 27.1365, a new paragraph (c) is added to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.1365 Electric cables.
* * * * *
(c) Insulation on electrical wire and cable installed in the
rotorcraft must be self-extinguishing when tested in accordance with
Appendix F, Part I(a)(3), of part 25 of this chapter.
PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS:TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
7. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
8. In Sec. 29.625, a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 29.625 Fitting factors.
* * * * *
(d) Each seat, berth, litter, safety belt, and harness attachment
to the structure must be shown by analysis, tests, or both, to be able
to withstand the inertia forces prescribed in Sec. 29.561(b)(3)
multiplied by a fitting factor of 1.33.
9. Section 29.785 is amended by revising the heading and by adding
a new sentence to the end of paragraph (k)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 29.785 Seats, berths, litters, safety belts, and harnesses
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(2) * * * The fitting factor required by Sec. 29.625(d) shall be
applied.
Sec. 29.923 [Amended]
10. In Sec. 29.923(a), the first sentence of the introductory text
is amended adding the phrase ``and (p)'' immediately following the
reference to paragraph ``(n)''.
Sec. 29.975 [Amended]
11. In Sec. 29.975, paragraph (a)(7) is amended by removing the
words ``, unless a rollover is shown to be extremely remote''.
12. In Sec. 29.1329, a new paragraph (f) is added to read as
follows:
Sec. 29.1329 Automatic pilot system.
* * * * *
(f) If the automatic pilot system can be coupled to airborne
navigation equipment, means must be provided to indicate to the pilots
the current mode of operation. Selector switch position is not
acceptable as a means of indication.
13. In Sec. 29.1351, paragraph (d)(1)(iii) is removed.
Sec. 29.1351 General.
14. In Sec. 29.1359, a new paragraph (c) is added to read as
follows:
Sec. 29.1359 Electrical system fire and smoke protection.
* * * * *
(c) Insulation on electrical wire and cable installed in the
rotorcraft must be self-extinguishing when tested in accordance with
Appendix F, Part I(a)(3), of part 25 of this chapter.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 7, 1998.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-21609 Filed 8-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
