[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31311]


[Federal Register: December 28, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Parts 27 and 29



Rotorcraft Regulatory Changes Based on European Joint Airworthiness 
Requirements Proposals; Proposed Rule
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

[Docket No. 28008; Notice No. 94-36]
RIN: 2120-AC27


Rotorcraft Regulatory Changes Based on European Joint 
Airworthiness Requirements Proposals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This notice proposes changes to the type certification 
requirements for both normal and transport category rotorcraft. The 
changes would revise airworthiness standards for performance, systems, 
propulsion, and airframes. The changes would increase the regulatory 
safety level, clarify existing regulations, and standardize 
terminology. The changes are based on standards that are being 
incorporated by the European Joint Aviation Authorities for the Joint 
Aviation Requirements (JAR) 27 and 29. These proposed changes are 
intended to harmonize the Federal Aviation Regulations rotorcraft type 
certification requirements and the European JAR.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 28, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice should be mailed in triplicate to: 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Chief Counsel, 
Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-10), Docket No. 28008; 800 Independence 
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. Comments delivered must be marked 
Docket No. 28008. Comments may be examined in Room 915G weekdays 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., except on Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Carroll Wright, Rotorcraft 
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Regulations Group, ASW-
111, FAA, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone number (817) 222-
5120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, or 
arguments on this proposed rule. Comments relating to the 
environmental, energy, federalism, or economic impact that might result 
from adopting the proposals in this notice are also invited. 
Substantive comments should be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments 
should identify the regulatory docket number and be submitted in 
triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All 
comments received on or before the closing date for comments will be 
considered before taking action on this proposed rule. The proposals 
contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments 
received. All comments received will be available, both before and 
after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for 
examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each 
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this 
rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to 
acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this 
notice must include a preaddressed, stamped postcard on which the 
following statement is made: ``Comments on Docket No. 28008.'' The 
postcard will be date stamped and mailed to the commenter.

Availability of NPRM's

    Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request 
to the FAA, Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, 
APA-200, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by 
calling (202) 267-3484. Communications must identify the notice number 
of this NPRM.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future 
NPRM's should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular 
No. 11-2A, NPRM Distribution System, which describes the application 
procedure.

Background

    At a meeting between FAA representatives and the European 
Airworthiness Authorities Steering Committee (AASC) in Washington, DC, 
in April 1983, the aviation manufacturing industry requested that the 
certification rules of Europe and the United States be standardized. 
The AASC agreed to provide the FAA with a comprehensive list of 
recommended changes for the regulations in part 29 of Title 14 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These changes would make part 29 
acceptable to AASC members for adoption as airworthiness standards. The 
AASC subsequently established a Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) 29 
group to develop transport category rotorcraft airworthiness standards 
for the issuance of European type certificates. The JAR 29 group was 
tasked with providing a list of recommended changes for part 29. The 
FAA solicited comments on key issues. The initial responses to that 
solicitation were published in the Federal Register (49 FR 19309, May 
7, 1984). On September 15, 1984, the AASC submitted a more 
comprehensive list of 92 suggested changes to part 29. An FAA review 
found that 34 of these proposals had either been incorporated, in whole 
or in part, in part 29 or were being considered in active rulemaking 
projects. Of the 58 proposals remaining, 25 were rejected for various 
reasons involving failure to meet Executive Order or Department of 
Transportation rulemaking requirements. The FAA provided the results of 
the review to the JAR 29 group including a summary of the status of the 
proposals being considered in active rulemaking projects.
    During further review of the remaining AASC proposals not included 
in existing rulemaking projects, the FAA determined that several of the 
proposals warranted public discussion. Accordingly, the FAA held a 
public meeting in Fort Worth, Texas, May 1-2, 1986 (51 FR 4504, 
February 5, 1986). Over 50 persons attended the meeting, which remained 
in session until each proposal not already in rulemaking had been 
discussed. The FAA subsequently issued NPRM No. 89-10 (54 FR 17396; 
April 25, 1989), which addressed the AASC proposals and resulted in the 
issuance of Amendments 27-27 and 29-31 (55 FR 38964; September 21, 
1990).
    The AASC activities were absorbed by the Joint Aviation Authorities 
(JAA), and the JAA established the Helicopter Airworthiness Study Group 
(HASG) to formulate JAR 27 and 29 for use by the 19 JAA countries. The 
JAA invited the FAA and industry groups to participate in HASG meetings 
on March 20-21, 1990. Members of Association Europeene des 
Constructeurs de Materiel Aerospatial (AECMA) represented the European 
manufacturers at the HASG Meetings, and AECMA invited members of the 
Aerospace Industries Association of America (AIA) to represent U.S. 
manufacturers. The HASG was chartered to formulate JAR 29, and 
subsequently JAR 27, to parallel as closely as possible part 29 as 
amended through Amendment 29-31 effective September 21, 1990, and part 
27 as amended through Amendment 27-27 effective September 21, 1990. The 
JAR 29 includes FAA NPRM's 89-26 (54 FR 39086, September 22, 1989) 
which proposes a new 30 second/2 minute One Engine Inoperative power 
rating, 89-29 (54 FR 42716, October 17, 1989) which proposes rotorburst 
protection, 90-1 (55 FR 698, January 8, 1990) which proposes new 
performance requirements, and 90-24 (55 FR 41000, October 5, 1990) 
which proposes a Crash Resistant Fuel System; JAR 27 is to also include 
NPRM's 89-26 and 90-24.

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) Considerations

    By announcement in the Federal Register (57 FR 58846, December 11, 
1992), the JAR-FAR 27 and 29 Harmonization Working Group was chartered 
by the ARAC. The working group included representatives from four major 
rotorcraft manufacturers (normal and transport) and representatives 
from AIA, AECMA, Helicopter Association International (HAI), JAA, and 
the 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.
    The Harmonization Working Group was tasked with making 
recommendations to the ARAC concerning the FAA acceptance or rejection 
of JAA Notice of Proposed Amendments (NPA's) recently coordinated 
between the JAA and the FAA. The ARAC subsequently recommended that the 
FAA revise the certification standards for normal and transport 
category rotorcraft as now contained in JAR 27 and 29.

FAA Evaluations of ARAC and JAA Proposals

    The FAA has evaluated the ARAC recommendations and proposes changes 
to the rotorcraft certification rules in both parts 27 and 29. These 
proposed changes have evolved from the FAA-JAA industry meetings of 
1990-1992 and the ARAC recommendations of 1993. These proposed changes 
would (1) incorporate current design and testing practices into the 
rules by requiring additional performance data, additional powerplant 
and rotor brake controls, and bird-strike protection, and (2) harmonize 
the certification requirements between Title 14 and the JAR. The 
proposals for part 27 include JAA's harmonized NPA's 27-basic and 27-1; 
and the proposals for part 29 include NPA's 29-basic and 29-1 through 
29-5. All sections of the harmonized NPA's are included in these 
proposals except for Sec. 27.602 of NPA 27-basic and Sec. 29.602 of NPA 
29-4. Those JAR sections include a critical parts plan that would 
control the design, substantiation, manufacture, maintenance, and 
modification of critical parts. While the JAA prescribes manufacturing 
and maintenance requirements in JAR 29, the FAA does not do the same in 
part 29. Part 21 of Title 14 addresses manufacturing requirements; part 
43 of Title 14 prescribes maintenance requirements. Part 29 contains 
the airworthiness requirements for rotorcraft certification; part 29 
addresses maintenance standards only to the extent that it mandates 
that the type certificate holder prepare Instructions for Continued 
Airworthiness, which includes the maintenance manual or section and 
maintenance instructions, and the Airworthiness Limitations section. 
Accordingly, the FAA may propose critical parts requirements in a 
separate rulemaking, which may also propose changes to parts 21 and 43.

General Discussion of the Proposals

    These proposals would introduce safety improvements, clarify 
existing regulations, and standardize terminology with the JAR's by 
revising the airworthiness standards for rotorcraft performance, 
systems, propulsion, and airframes. These proposed changes are based on 
requirements that have been adopted by JAA for JAR 27 and 29. The part 
27 proposals would require all-engines-operating (AEO) climb 
performance data, powerplant controls to maintain any set position, and 
rotor brake control standards. The proposals would also provide an 
option for the certification of part 27 rotorcraft to Category A; i.e., 
one engine inoperative (OEI) requirements. The part 29 proposals would 
provide standards for electrical bonding of airframe components to 
protect against lightning and precipitation static discharge, a design 
assessment of rotors and drive train, and bird-strike protection. 
Additional powerplant instruments are proposed. The part 29 proposals 
would also clarify performance requirements for Category A, flutter and 
divergence applicability, and emergency electrical power supply 
requirements.

Discussion of Specific Proposals

Section 27.1  Applicability

    Proposed new Sec. 27.1(c) would provide an optional basis for 
normal category multiengine rotorcraft to be certificated to Category A 
requirements by meeting those design and performance requirements of 
part 29 as specified in a new appendix C to part 27.

Section 27.65  Climb: all engines operating

    This proposed revision of Sec. 27.65(b)(2) would require a 
determination of AEO climb performance for all rotorcraft. Currently 
rotorcraft AEO climb performance is required only for ambient 
conditions where the never-exceed speed (Vne) is less than the 
speed for the best rate of climb (Vy). Climb performance 
information is necessary for operational planning for rotorcraft, e.g., 
planning for obstacle clearance. Manufacturers have historically 
provided this information even though it is not required by the 
existing regulations. This change would incorporate that current 
practice as a requirement in the FAR.

Section 27.1141  Powerplant controls: general

    This proposed new Sec. 27.1141(d) would add to part 27 the 
requirement of Sec. 29.1141(d) that powerplant controls must maintain 
any set position. The proposed requirement states that each control 
``must be able to maintain any set position without constant attention 
or tendency to creep due to control loads or vibration.'' ``Must be 
able to,'' in this regard, would require that the rotorcraft have 
identifiable design features that keep the controls from moving. This 
requirement would improve safety by reducing pilot work load for part 
27 rotorcraft. Because most rotorcraft manufacturers already comply 
voluntarily with this standard, this should require no significant 
design or manufacturing effort.

Section 27.1151  Rotor brake controls

    This proposed new section would add to part 27 the requirements of 
Sec. 29.1151 on rotor brake controls. These proposed requirements are 
necessary for the safe operation of any rotorcraft equipped with a 
rotor brake. Requirements to prevent inadvertent application of rotor 
brakes in flight are necessary to prevent possible damage or fire due 
to rotor brake application. Current rotorcraft rotor brake 
installations normally incorporate these design features; no 
significant design or manufacturing effort should be necessary.

Appendix C to Part 27

    This proposed new appendix would provide a list of part 29 Category 
A standards that are directly related to the continued safe powered 
flight capability of a multiengine rotorcraft in the event of engine or 
other system failure. The proposed standards would be required to be 
met for an optional Category A approval for a part 27 rotorcraft.

Section 29.547  Main and tail rotor structures

    Proposed new Sec. 29.547(b) would require a design assessment that 
identifies the critical components of the main and tail rotor 
structures. The design assessment must also identify the means (such as 
scheduled inspection, removal, and replacement of components) that 
minimize the likelihood of failure for each critical component.

Section 29.610  Lightning and static electricity protection

    The word ``structure'' would be added to current Sec. 29.610(a) to 
clarify that these requirements address the rotorcraft structure and 
not equipment, systems, and installations that are adequately covered 
under the requirements of Sec. 29.1309. The proposed addition of the 
word ``structure'' to paragraph (a) is intended to clarify that the 
metallic components and nonmetallic components of paragraphs (b) and 
(c) are structural components. Proposed new paragraph (d) would require 
electrical bonding of the rotorcraft components for protection against 
hazardous effects from lightning and discharge of static electricity. 
In this regard, the reference to the bonding and protection ``be[ing] 
such as to'' would require that the rotorcraft have identifiable design 
features that achieve the standards required in paragraphs (d) (1) 
through (4). Part 29 does not currently provide electrical bonding 
requirements, and experience has shown that inadequate bonding can 
result in hazardous conditions due to discharge of static electricity. 
The proposed new paragraph (d)(4) would require electrical bonding and 
protection against lightning and static electricity that would reduce 
the effects on the functioning of essential electrical and electronic 
equipment to an acceptable level (as determined by Secs. 29.1309 and 
29.1431).

Section 29.629 Flutter and divergence

    This proposed revision of Sec. 29.629 would add the words ``and 
divergence'' to the title and text of the section. This proposal would 
extend the requirements to cover aeroelastic instability other than 
flutter of aerodynamic surfaces. This proposal would require the use of 
rational analysis, tests, or a combination of analysis and tests to 
demonstrate freedom from aeroelastic instability for the basic design. 
Most manufacturers currently do this type of analysis or test; this 
change would require formal documentation and approval of that analysis 
or test.

Section 29.631  Bird strike

    This proposed new section would require bird-strike protection for 
transport rotorcraft. Rotorcraft, as well as airplanes, are exposed to 
the possibility of collision with a bird. With the potential for higher 
speeds by modern transport rotorcraft designs and the changes in 
material technology, the possibility of increased damage from bird 
strikes exists. In addition, the effects of bird strikes on new 
materials used in rotorcraft must be evaluated. The FAA has determined 
that a requirement for protection against catastrophic effects from 
impact with a 2.2 pound (1 kilogram) bird is reasonable for rotorcraft 
certificated in the transport category (part 29). A 2.2 pound bird 
represents the typical size for intended structural capability; 
therefore, such protection is being proposed. Proposed Sec. 29.631 
would require that the rotorcraft be designed to assure capability of 
continued safe flight and landing (for Category A) or safe landing (for 
Category B) after bird strike. In this regard, ``capability'' means 
that the design has features that assure continued safe flight and/or 
landing, as would be required. Proposed Sec. 29.631 would also require 
that substantiation of the design be based on tests or analysis of 
tests carried out on sufficiently representative structures of design 
similar to that of the design to be approved. In this regard, 
``sufficiently'' means that the structures at least represent the 
design to be approved.

Section 29.917  Design

    A new Sec. 29.917(b) is proposed for this section, and 
redesignation of existing paragraph (b) as (c) is proposed. This 
proposed new Sec. 29.917(b) would require a design assessment that 
identifies critical components of the rotor drive system. The design 
assessment would also identify the means that minimize the likelihood 
of failure for each critical component (such as scheduled inspection, 
removal, and replacement of components). This proposed section is a 
companion to the rotor structure proposal of Sec. 29.547.

Section 29.923  Rotor drive system and control mechanism tests

    This proposed revision to Sec. 29.923(b)(3)(i) would increase the 
testing for 2 minute OEI power from one to two runs per cycle. The JAA 
are concerned that a possible inconsistency exists in the current rule. 
Using one run per cycle, a higher and potentially more damaging power 
rating could be substantiated by less testing at the 2-minute OEI power 
than at the 2\1/2\ minute OEI power. The FAA agrees and increased 
testing for 2 minute OEI power is proposed.

Section 29.1305  Powerplant instruments

    The current rule requires an oil pressure warning device, which 
could be a simple light, for each pressure-lubricated gearbox. Proposed 
new Sec. 29.1305(a)(6) would add a requirement for an oil pressure 
indicator for each pressure-lubricated gearbox. This change would 
provide the crew with an early warning of oil pressure problems and 
confirm that the oil pressure warning is valid. The proposed addition 
of a new Sec. 29.1305(a)(6) would necessitate renumbering of existing 
paragraphs (a)(6) through (a)(25) as (a)(7) through (a)(26).

Section 29.1309  Systems, equipment, and installations

    Section 29.610 was referenced in Sec. 29.1309(h) to require 
protection against a catastrophic systems failure due to lightning. 
Since Sec. 29.1309(h) applies to lightning protection of systems and 
equipment, it is unnecessary to reference Sec. 29.610, which applies to 
lightning protection of structures, Therefore, this proposed change 
would delete the reference to Sec. 29.610 in Sec. 29.1309(h).

Section 29.1351  General

    The proposed changes to Secs. 29.1351(d) and 29.1351(d)(1) would 
clarify that the regulation applies to the normal electrical power 
generating system and would editorially change the Sec. 29.1351(d) 
heading. The Sec. 29.1351(d) heading would change from, ``Operation 
without normal electrical power'' to ``Operation with the normal 
electrical power generating system inoperative,'' and ``generating 
system'' would be added after electrical power in Sec. 29.1351(d)(1).
    The proposed additions to Sec. 29.1351(d)(2) would provide 
requirements for the emergency electrical power system for Category A 
rotorcraft. Section 29.1351(d)(2) is entitled ``Category A Aircraft.'' 
The proposed new Sec. 29.1351(d)(2)(i) would require that emergency 
electrical power be provided to those systems necessary for continued 
safe flight and landing for rotorcraft certificated to Category A 
requirements. Consideration of the possible duration of flight time to 
reach a suitable landing site and make a safe landing would be 
required. A minimum of 30 minutes flight time is necessary for 
continued safe flight and landing for Category A rotorcraft. Proposed 
new Sec. 29.1351(d)(2)(ii) would require that loss of both normal and 
emergency electrical power systems be shown to be extremely improbable. 
This will ensure that no single failure (such as effects of fire or 
loss of junction box) will result in the disabling of both the normal 
and emergency electrical power systems. Finally, a new 
Sec. 29.1351(d)(2)(iii) would require that the emergency electrical 
power system include independent, automatic features for electrical 
load shedding to conserve the emergency electrical power (batteries) 
after loss of the normal electrical power generating system. The intent 
is to allow the flight crew time to take corrective actions for engine 
fire, cockpit fire, or other in-flight emergencies common to situations 
resulting in loss of the normal electrical power generating system 
without being distracted by a need to manually switch off or shed 
electrical power. In this regard, ``immediate'' refers to those systems 
that, if they did not continue to operate, would necessitate the 
attention of the flight crew.

Section 29.1587  Performance information

    Proposed new Sec. 29.1587(a)(6) would require that the climb 
gradient information necessary for the pilot to determine the allowable 
maximum takeoff weight to clear any obstacle in the takeoff path be 
added to the Rotorcraft Flight Manual for Category A rotorcraft. 
Because the data are already available from the other requirements, the 
only additional requirement would be to incorporate this data into the 
Rotorcraft Flight Manual.

Appendix B to Part 29 Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter Instrument 
Flight

    The proposed addition of a section VIII(b)(6) to Appendix B would 
provide a reference to new Sec. 29.1351(d)(2) to clarify that 
requirements for operation with the normal electrical power generating 
system inoperative apply to Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) certificated 
rotorcraft. When the emergency electrical power source provided for an 
IFR certificated rotorcraft is time limited; e.g., a battery, the 
required duration will depend on the type and role of the rotorcraft. 
However, an endurance of less than 30 minutes would not be acceptable.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Introduction

    Proposed changes to federal regulations must undergo several 
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal 
agencies to promulgate new regulations or modify existing regulations 
only if the potential benefits to society outweigh the potential costs. 
Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to 
analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. 
Finally, the Office of Management and Budget has directed agencies to 
assess the effects of regulatory changes on international trade. In 
conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this proposed 
rule (1) would generate benefits exceeding its costs and is neither a 
significant regulatory action as defined in the Executive Order nor 
significant as defined in DOT's Policies and Procedures, (2) would not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
and (3) would lessen restraints on international trade. These analyses, 
available in the docket, are summarized below.

Costs and Benefits

    All of the proposed changes to part 27 and all but four of the 
proposed changes to part 29 would impose no or significant costs on 
rotorcraft manufacturers because they reflect current design practices. 
In recent years, manufacturers have incorporated engineering and 
structural improvements into rotorcraft designs that exceed the minimum 
regulatory requirements with the aim of increasing operating 
efficiencies, payload capabilities, and marketability in world markets. 
Most new rotorcraft designs are based on existing designs. Many of 
these improvements have also improved safety. Codification of these 
improvements and other proposed changes would ensure that these 
features are incorporated in all future rotorcraft designs.
    Additionally, adoption of the proposed changes would increase 
harmonization and commonality between U.S. and European airworthiness 
standards. Harmonization would eliminate differences between 
airworthiness requirements, thus reducing manufacturers' cost for dual 
certification. Based on experience in a recent certification, one 
rotorcraft manufacturer indicated that complying with different FAA/JAA 
requirements resulted in several hundred thousand dollars in excessive 
certification costs. Aside from the benefits of enhanced safety levels 
as described above, the benefits of certification cost savings would, 
by themselves, outweigh the relatively modest increase in certification 
costs that the amendments would impose.
    Following is a brief summary of the four proposed changes to part 
29 that would impose additional costs totalling approximately $150,000 
per type certification. The safety benefits of these proposed changes 
are expected to easily exceed the incremental costs.
    Section 29.547--Main and tail rotor structure. While manufactures 
currently perform the proposed design assessment as an integral part of 
the design requirements of Sec. 29.917, there would be some incremental 
costs to formalize the existing information. These costs are included 
in the cost estimates of proposed Sec. 29.917 summarized below. Formal 
identification and assessment of critical component failures would 
increase safety by providing more comprehensive maintenance information 
to operators. The benefits of averting a single catastrophic accident 
would exceed the relatively low incremental costs of compliance.
    Section 29.631--Bird strike. Manufacturers indicate that present 
rotorcraft structures can withstand impacts from a 2.2 pound bird; 
therefore, no incremental manufacturing costs are anticipated to 
implement new designs. Nonrecurring testing and analysis costs of the 
proposed requirement are estimated to be $100,000 per type 
certification. A review of National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 
data for the period 1983-1991 reveals two rotorcraft accidents caused 
by bird strikes. One accident resulted in one serious injury, one minor 
injury, and substantial damage to the rotorcraft (tail rotor 
separation); in the other accident the rotorcraft was destroyed but 
there were no injuries. There is at least an equal probability of such 
accidents and the resultant damage in the future, given the tendencies 
toward higher operating speeds and use of composite materials. The 
benefits of averting a single catastrophic accident would exceed the 
incremental costs.
    Section 29.917--Design. The incremental costs to formalize existing 
design information for the rotor structure (proposed Sec. 29.547 above) 
and drive system are estimated to total $44,000 per type certification. 
Formal assessment and identification of critical components of the 
rotor drive system would increase safety by providing more 
comprehensive maintenance information to operators. The benefits of 
averting a single catastrophic accident caused directly or indirectly 
by a lack of relevant data would easily exceed the incremental costs of 
providing that data.
    Section 29.1587--Performance information. Because the required 
climb gradient data would already be available from the results of 
flight tests required to obtain performance information, the only 
additional costs would be those associated with incorporating the data 
into the Rotorcraft Flight Manual, estimated to total $5,500 per 
certification. Although NTSB accident records do not include any 
accidents directly attributable to lack of performance data, there were 
a few accidents in which such data were ignored or misinterpreted. The 
availability and accuracy of such data would enhance operational 
safety. The benefits of averting a single catastrophic accident caused 
directly or indirectly by a lack of relevant performance information 
would easily exceed the incremental costs of providing that data.

International Trade Impact Analysis

    The proposed rule would not constitute a barrier to international 
trade, including the export of American rotorcraft to foreign countries 
and the import of foreign rotorcraft into the United States. Instead, 
the proposed changes on rotorcraft certification procedures, harmonized 
with those of the JAA, would lower dual certification costs, thereby 
enhancing free trade.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 was enacted by 
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and 
disproportionately burdened by government regulations. The RFA requires 
a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a rule would have a significant 
economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial 
number of small entities. Based on the criteria of FAA Order 2100.14A, 
Regulatory Flexibility Criteria and Guidance, the FAA has determined 
that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.

Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed above, including the findings in the 
Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the International Trade Impact 
Analysis, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in 
conjunction with the FAA has determined that this proposed regulation 
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and, 
therefore, was not subject to centralized regulatory review by the 
OIRA. In addition, the FAA certifies that this regulation will not have 
a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial 
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. This proposal is considered to be nonsignificant under 
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 
1979). An initial regulatory evaluation of the proposal, including a 
Regulatory Flexibility Determination and Trade Impact Analysis, has 
been placed in the docket. A copy may be obtained by contacting the 
person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Rotorcraft, Safety.

The Proposed Amendments

    Accordingly, the FAA proposes to amend parts 27 and 29 of the 
Federal Aviation Regulations (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. 1344, 1354(a), 1355, 1421, 1423, 1425, 
1428, 1429, and 1430; 49 U.S.C. 106(g).

    2. Section 27.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 27.1  Applicability.

 * * * * *
    (c) Multiengine rotorcraft may be type certificated as Category A 
provided the requirements of appendix C of this part are met.
    3. Section 27.65 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and 
(b)(2)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec. 27.65  Climb: all engines operating.

 * * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The steady rate of climb must be determined--
 * * * * *
    (ii) Within the range from sea level up to the maximum altitude for 
which certification is requested;
 * * * * *
    4. Section 27.1141 is amended by redesignating existing paragraphs 
(c) and (d) as paragraphs (d) and (e) and by adding a new paragraph (c) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 27.1141  Powerplant controls: general.

 * * * * *
    (c) Each control must be able to maintain any set position 
without--
    (1) Constant attention; or
    (2) Tendency to creep due to control loads or vibration.
 * * * * *
    5. Section 27.1151 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 27.1151  Rotor brake controls.

    (a) It must be impossible to apply the rotor brake inadvertently in 
flight.
    (b) There must be means to warn the crew if the rotor brake has not 
been completely released before takeoff.
    6. Part 27 is amended by adding a new appendix C to read as 
follows:

Appendix C to Part 27--Criteria for Category A

C27.1  General.

    A small multiengine rotocraft may not be type certificated for 
Category A operation unless it meets the design installation and 
performance requirements contained in this appendix in addition to 
the requirements of this part.
C27.2  Applicable part 29 sections.

    The following sections of part 29 of this chapter must be met in 
addition to the requirements of this part:

29.45(a) and (b)(2)--General.
29.49(a)--Performance at minimum operating speed.
29.51--Takeoff data: General.
29.53--Takeoff: Category A.
29.55--Takeoff decision point: Category A.
29.59--Takeoff path: Category A.
29.60--Elevated heliport takeoff path: Category A.
29.61--Takeoff distance: Category A.
29.62--Rejected takeoff: Category A.
29.64--Climb: General.
29.65(a)--Climb: AEO.
29.67(a)--Climb: OEI.
29.75--Landing: General.
29.77--Landing decision point: Category A.
29.79--Landing; Category A.
29.81--Landing distance (Ground level sites): Category A.
29.85--Balked landing: Category A.
29.87(a)--Height-velocity envelope.
29.547(a) and (b)--Main and tail rotor structure.
29.571--Fatigue evaluation of structure. AC Material only: AC29-2A 
Item 230 Paragraph 10.
29.861(a)--Fire protection of structure, controls, and other parts.
29.901(c)--Powerplant: Installation.
29.903(b)(c) and (e)--Engines.
29.908(a)--Cooling fans.
29.917(b) and (c)(1)--Rotor drive system: Design.
29.927(c)(1)--Additional tests.
29.953(a)--Fuel system independence.
29.1027(a)--Transmission and gearboxes: General.
29.1045(a)(1), (b), (c), (d), and (f)--Climb cooling test 
procedures.
29.1047(a)--Takeoff cooling test procedures.
29.1181(a)--Designated fire zones: Regions included.
29.1187(e)--Drainage and ventilation of fire zones.
29.1189(c)--Shutoff means.
29.1191(a)(1)--Firewalls.
29.1193(e)--Cowling and engine compartment covering.
29.1195(a) and (d)--Fire extinguishing systems (one shot).
29.1197--Fire extinguishing agents.
29.1199--Extinguishing agent containers.
29.1201--Fire extinguishing system materials.
29.1305(a)(6) and (b)--Powerplant instruments.
29.1309(b)(2)(i) and (d)--Equipment, systems, and installations.
29.1323(c)(1)--Airspeed indicating system.
29.1331(b)--Instruments using a power supply.
29.1351(d)(2)--Electrical systems and equipment: General (operation 
without normal electrical power).
29.1587(a)--Performance information.

    3. In complying with the paragraphs listed in paragraph 2 above, 
relevant material in AC 29-2A should be used.

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

    7. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:


    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1344, 1354(a), 1355, 1421, 1423, 1424, 
1425, 1428, 1429, and 1430; 49 U.S.C. 106(g).


    8. Section 29.547 is amended by revising the heading; revising 
paragraph (a); adding a new paragraph (b); removing the word ``main'' 
in the introductory text of paragraphs (c), (d), and (e); and revising 
paragraph (e)(1)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec. 29.547  Main and tail rotor structure.

    (a) A rotor is an assembly of rotating components, which includes 
the rotor hub, blades, blade dampers, the pitch control mechanisms, and 
all other parts that rotate with the assembly.
    (b) Each rotor assembly must be designed as prescribed in this 
section and must function safely for the critical flight load and 
operating conditions. A design assessment must be performed, including 
a detailed failure analysis to identify all failures that will prevent 
continued safe flight or safe landing, and must identify the means to 
minimize the likelihood of their occurrence.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) For the main rotor, the limit engine torque specified in 
Sec. 29.361.
* * * * *
    9. In Sec. 29.610 the heading is revised; the word ``structure'' is 
added between the words ``rotorcraft'' and ``must'' in paragraph (a); 
and a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 29.610  Lightning and static electricity protection.

* * * * *
    (d) The electrical bonding and protection against lightning and 
static electricity must be such as to--
    (1) Minimize the accumulation of electrostatic charge;
    (2) Minimize the risk of electrical 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.
    10. Section 29.629 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 29.629  Flutter and divergence.

    Each aerodynamic surface of the rotorcraft must be free from 
flutter and divergence under each appropriate speed and power 
condition.
    11. A new Sec. 29.631 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 29.631  Bird strike.

    The rotorcraft must be designed to assure capability of continued 
safe flight and landing (for Category A) or safe landing (for Category 
B) after impact with a 2.2 lb (1.0 kg) bird when the velocity of the 
rotorcraft (relative to the bird along the flight path of the 
rotorcraft) is equal to VNE or VH (whichever is the lesser) 
at altitudes up to 8,000 feet. Compliance must be shown by tests or by 
analysis based on tests carried out on sufficiently representative 
structures of similar design.
    12. Section 29.917 is amended by redesignating existing paragraph 
(b) as (c) and adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec. 29.917  Design.

* * * * *
    (b) Design assessment. A design assessment must be performed to 
ensure that the rotor drive system functions safely over the full range 
of conditions for which certification is sought. The design assessment 
must include a detailed failure analysis to identify all failures that 
will prevent continued safe flight or safe landing and must identify 
the means to minimize the likelihood of their occurrence.
* * * * *
    13. Section 29.923 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3)(i) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 29.923  Rotor drive system and control mechanism tests.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Immediately following any one 5-minute power-on run required by 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, simulate a failure for each power 
source in turn, and apply the maximum torque and the maximum speed for 
use with 30-second OEI power to the remaining affected drive system 
power inputs for not less than 30 seconds. Each application of 30-
second OEI power must be followed by two applications of the maximum 
torque and the maximum speed for use with the 2 minute OEI power for 
not less than 2 minutes each; the second application must follow a 
period at stabilized continuous or 30 minute OEI power (whichever is 
requested by the applicant). At least one run sequence must be 
conducted from a simulated ``flight idle'' condition.
* * * * *
    14. Section 29.1305 is amended by redesignating existing paragraphs 
(a)(6) through (a)(25) as paragraphs (a)(7) through (a)(26) and adding 
a new paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:


Sec. 29.1305  Powerplant instruments.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (6) An oil pressure indicator for each pressure-lubricated gearbox;
* * * * *
    15. Section 29.1309 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 29.1309  Equipment, systems, and installations.

* * * * *
    (h) In showing compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section, the effects of lightning strikes on the rotorcraft must be 
considered.
    16. Section 29.1351 is amended by revising the heading of paragraph 
(d), redesignating the introductory text of paragraph (d) as (d)(1) and 
adding the words ``generating system'' after the words ``normal 
electrical power'' in new (d)(1), redesignating paragraphs (d)(1), 
(d)(2), and (d)(3) as (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(ii), and (d)(1)(iii), and 
adding a new paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:


Sec. 29.1351  General.

* * * * *
    (d) Operation with the normal electrical power generating system 
inoperative. * * *
* * * * *
    (2) Additional requirements for Category A Rotorcraft.
    (i) Unless it can be shown that the loss of the normal electrical 
power generating system is extremely improbable, an emergency 
electrical power system, independent of the normal electrical power 
generating system, must be provided, with sufficient capacity to power 
all systems necessary for continued safe flight and landing.
    (ii) Failures, including junction box, control panel, or wire 
bundle fires, which would result in the loss of the normal and 
emergency systems, must be shown to be extremely improbable.
    (iii) Systems necessary for immediate safety must continue to 
operate following the loss of the normal electrical power generating 
system, without the need for flight crew action.
    17. Section 29.1587 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(6), 
removing ``and'' from end of paragraph (a)(4), and adding ``and'' to 
end of paragraph (a)(5).


Sec. 29.1587  Performance information.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (6) The steady gradient of climb for each weight, altitude, and 
temperature for which takeoff data are to be scheduled, along the 
takeoff path determined in the flight conditions required in Sec. 29.67 
(a)(1) and (a)(2):
    (i) In the flight conditions required in Sec. 29.67(a)(1) between 
the end of the takeoff distance and the point at which the rotorcraft 
is 200 feet above the takeoff surface (or 200 feet above the lowest 
point of the takeoff profile for elevated heliports).
    (ii) In the flight conditions required in Sec. 29.67(a)(2) between 
the points at which the rotorcraft is 200 and 1000 feet above the 
takeoff surface (or 200 and 1000 feet above the lowest point of the 
takeoff profile for elevated heliports).
* * * * *
    18. Part 29 Appendix B is amended by adding a new paragraph 
VIII(b)(6).

Appendix B to Part 29--Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter 
Instrument Flight

* * * * *
    VIII. * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) In determining compliance with the requirements of 
Sec. 29.1351(d)(2), the supply of electrical power to all systems 
necessary for flight under IFR must be included in the evaluation.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 12, 1994.
Thomas E. McSweeny,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 94-31311 Filed 12-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M