[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21894-21901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11494]




[[Page 21893]]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 29



Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Rotorcraft Performance; 
Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and 
Regulations  

[[Page 21894]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 29

[Docket No. 24802; Amendment No. 29-40]
RIN 2120-AB36


Airworthiness Standards; Transport Category Rotorcraft 
Performance

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule adopts new and revised airworthiness standards for 
the performance of transport category rotorcraft. The changes define 
more clearly the factors for determining takeoff, climb, and landing 
performance requirements. These changes provide an improved level of 
safety associated with recent technological advances in the design of 
turboshaft engines and rotorcraft.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.E. Archer, Policy and Procedures 
Group (ASW-110), Rotorcraft Standards Staff, Aircraft Certification 
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0110, 
telephone (817) 222-5126.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    This final rule is based on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
(Notice 90-1), issued January 2, 1990 (55 FR 698, January 8, 1990). The 
NPRM was preceded by an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) 
(Notice 85-19) issued October 9, 1985 (50 FR 42126, October 17, 1985), 
and by a public meeting on April 30, 1986 (51 FR 4504, February 5, 
1986), in Fort Worth, Texas. A transcript of that meeting is contained 
in the docket for this rulemaking. Supplemental Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (SNPRM) (Notice 90-1A), issued June 15, 1994 (59 FR 33598, 
June 29, 1994), modified Notice 90-1 by including a minimum descent 
height of 15 feet.
    Amendment 29-21 (48 FR 4373, January 26, 1983) revised the 
transport category rotorcraft airworthiness requirements to provide for 
an increased level of safety in several areas, including performance. 
Subsequently, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) program to 
develop guidance material (Advisory Circulars 27-1 and 29-2A) for 
certification of rotorcraft in accordance with the requirements of 
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 14) part 29 (part 
29) revealed a need for some additions to and clarification of the 
provisions of Amendment 29-21. Those additions and clarification are 
included in this amendment.
    Amendment 29-21 modified the applicability limits of Categories A 
and B of Transport Category Rotorcraft. Category A rotorcraft must meet 
a higher level of safety, including the requirement to have multiple 
engines, and be able to continue safe flight after an engine failure. 
Category B rotorcraft may be either single or multiengine, but the 
changes adopted in Amendment 29-21 limited this category further to a 
maximum capacity of nine passengers and 20,000 pounds gross weight. No 
changes are made to those limits in this amendment.
    A significant element of Notice 90-1 was a proposed minimum climb 
gradient for the Category A takeoff path. This standard was proposed to 
standardize the climb gradient for helicopters regardless of their 
airspeeds and to facilitate heliport planning. The present standard 
requires a minimum rate of climb for the takeoff path; however, 
recently certificated rotorcraft, as well as most rotorcraft currently 
under development, produce maximum rates of climb at higher airspeeds 
than the previous generation of rotorcraft. For a specific rate of 
climb, the climb gradient decreases as climb airspeed increases. This 
results in a shallower climb gradient for modern, high-speed rotorcraft 
than for older, slow-speed rotorcraft. Notice 90-1 proposed a minimum 
climb gradient based on the present rate-of-climb requirement and the 
lower airspeed of older rotorcraft. At the time Notice 90-1 was issued, 
FAA analysis suggested that this change would have involved an 
acceptably small weight (payload) penalty. However, more precise data 
supplied by the commenters in response to the notice indicate there 
would be a payload penalty of 450 pounds or greater for a current 
10,000-pound class helicopter. This could represent as much as 20 to 25 
percent of the passenger payload, which one commenter characterized as 
totally unacceptable. Upon reconsideration, the FAA agrees that the 
proposal would have a significantly more burdensome effect and would 
not be cost beneficial, and as noted in the following discussion, the 
proposal for requiring minimum climb gradient is not adopted in this 
rule.
    All interested persons have been given an opportunity to 
participate in the making of these amendments, and due consideration 
has been given to all comments received. Except for the change 
described above and for the nonsubstantive, editorial, and clarifying 
changes as discussed herein, the proposals have been adopted as 
proposed.

Discussion of Comments

    Five commenters each responded to Notices 85-19 and 90-1. These 
commenters represent worldwide manufacturers, operators, and 
airworthiness authorities. The commenters' recommendations and the 
suggested changes are summarized in the following discussions. Four 
commenters responded to Notice 90-1A and all agreed with that proposal.

14 CFR 29.1  Applicability

    Notice 90-1 proposed to change the reference in paragraph (e) from 
Secs. 29.79 to 29.87, which is redesignation of the section number for 
the height-velocity envelope. There were no comments; therefore, the 
proposal is adopted.

New 14 CFR 29.49  Performance at Minimum Operating Speed (Old 
Sec. 29.73)

    Notice 90-1 proposed to redesignate Sec. 29.73 as Sec. 29.49 to 
relocate the requirements for helicopter hover performance. For 
transport category helicopters, hover performance is analogous to the 
stall speed for transport category airplanes and provides the basis for 
all other performance requirements. Therefore, by placing the 
requirements for hovering performance first, the other requirements 
more logically follow.
    One commenter proposes a requirement for one-engine-inoperative 
(OEI) hover performance both in and out-of-ground effect (OGE). This 
comment, also made in response to the ANPRM, is beyond the scope of 
this rule as proposed in the notice.
    This commenter also recommends that OGE controllability (in 17-knot 
winds from any direction) should also be required. The FAA disagrees. 
Past FAA policy has permitted OGE performance to be presented in zero 
wind if a minimum of yaw control remains (i.e., must be able to 
generate a positive yaw rate) or to be demonstrated with some wind 
condition if the demonstrated conditions are clearly identified in the 
Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM). The validity of this policy has been 
borne out by good service experience; therefore, the 17-knot criteria 
are not considered necessary in determining OGE controllability. 
Therefore, the FAA considers the calm-wind OGE hover performance data 
with no related controllability limit are the minimum data that should 
be provided, and the amendment is adopted as proposed. The

[[Page 21895]]

requirement to provide performance information about OGE hover and the 
maximum safe wind for the data presented is clarified in the new 
Sec. 29.1587(a)(6) and revised Sec. 29.1587(b)(8).

14 CFR 29.51  Takeoff Data: General

    Notice 90-1 proposed to change the sections referenced in the 
introductory text of paragraph (a) to correspond to the applicable 
sections numbered in accordance with these new amendments. No comments 
were received; therefore, the proposal is adopted as proposed.

14 CFR 29.53  Takeoff: Category A

    This proposal would separate, in the text, the Category A takeoff 
requirement from the definition of a decision point. No comments were 
received; therefore, the proposal is adopted as proposed.

New 14 CFR 29.55  Takeoff Decision Point: Category A

    Notice 90-1 proposed to add this new section to redefine the 
takeoff critical decision point (CDP) previously contained in 
Sec. 29.53; it further proposed to remove the requirement to identify 
the CDP by height and airspeed, since height alone or other factors may 
be more appropriate. A commenter suggests that the section title and 
other references to ``critical decision point'' be changed to ``takeoff 
decision point (TDP).'' The commenter notes that TDP is compatible with 
the term ``landing decision point (LDP)'' already in other regulatory 
parts. The FAA agrees; accordingly, ``critical decision point'' is 
changed to ``takeoff decision point.''
    Additionally, a commenter to Sec. 29.59 states that engine failure 
and the TDP do not occur at the same time because of necessary pilot-
recognition time. The FAA agrees that a time interval for pilot 
recognition of the engine failure must be included when establishing 
the TDP. Calculating a pilot-recognition time interval when determining 
the TDP is a natural part of the TDP-determining process. Current 
industry practice already adequately considers this pilot-recognition 
time interval in determining the TDP. Therefore, to explicitly state 
this requirement in the regulations imposes no additional economic 
burden on manufacturers. Also, to harmonize Title 14 and the Joint 
Aviation Requirements (JAR's), the certification requirements for the 
Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of Europe, an explicit adoption of the 
pilot-recognition time interval is necessary. Therefore, since a pilot-
recognition time interval is currently being used by manufacturers, and 
the FAA and the manufacturers are interested in harmonizing Title 14 
and the JAR's, a new paragraph (c) has been added to Sec. 29.55 to 
require that a pilot-recognition time interval be included in the TDP 
determination.
    This section is adopted with changes as discussed.

14 CFR 29.59  Takeoff Path: Category A

    Notice 90-1 proposed to move the rejected takeoff requirements to a 
new Sec. 29.62 and more clearly define the takeoff path from the start 
of the takeoff to completion at 1,000 feet above the takeoff surface. 
It also proposed the new phrase ``critical decision point,'' now 
changed to ``takeoff decision point'' as explained in new Sec. 29.55. 
The most significant proposed change was to establish minimum climb 
gradients along the takeoff path. Present requirements specify only a 
rate of climb. The use of gradients would have assisted heliport 
designers and provided additional safe ground clearance. The FAA 
estimated that inclusion of these gradients would introduce only a 
slight performance penalty. However, as discussed earlier, more precise 
data submitted by commenters indicate that adopting these gradients 
would result in an unanticipated decrease in the payload of a 10,000-
pound class rotorcraft. Therefore, present rate-of-climb requirements 
are retained; the proposed minimum climb gradient is not adopted; and 
the remaining paragraphs of Sec. 29.59 are renumbered accordingly.
    One commenter proposes that a new section be introduced to require 
information on the takeoff path acceleration segment distance when 
accelerating from VTOSS to Vy and that Sec. 29.1587 also be 
amended to require these data. The commenter's proposal is beyond the 
scope of Notice 90-1; therefore, the proposal is not included in the 
amendment as adopted but may be appropriate for future rulemaking.
    Another commenter disagrees that engine failure and CDP (now TDP) 
occur at the same time. The FAA agrees as discussed previously under 
Sec. 29.55. Accordingly, the proposed Sec. 29.59(a)(2) has been 
reworded by changing critical decision point to engine failure point; 
and by adding the phrase, ``. . . continue to the TDP, and then . . .'' 
to paragraph (a)(3). These additions clarify that consideration of the 
time interval between engine failure and the pilot's recognition of the 
failure is necessary in establishing TDP.
    Notice 90-1, with respect to loss of altitude after engine failure, 
proposed no minimum height during descent to attain VTOSS except 
that touchdown should not occur. Also, Notice 90-1 proposed that a 
minimum ground clearance be determined during certification and the 
data included in the RFM. Several commenters objected to the proposal 
and stated that a minimum ground clearance value should be specified in 
the rule. Wide support was expressed by European authorities, 
manufacturers, and operators to limit the descent to not less than 15 
feet above the takeoff surface. Also, this minimum height was reflected 
in the European JAA, Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 29-2, 
Preliminary Issue 1. However, since Notice 90-1 proposed to eliminate 
the existing 35-foot minimum height of part 29, requiring a new minimum 
height of a specified value in excess of that proposed was more 
stringent than that proposed in Notice 90-1. Therefore, the FAA issued 
Notice 90-1A to include a minimum descent height of 15 feet and all 
commenters agreed. Hence, the minimum descent height of 15 fee is 
adopted as proposed by Notice 90-1A. However, the paragraph is shown as 
(e) rather than (g) as proposed by Notice 90-1A due to renumbering as 
discussed previously.

New 14 CFR 29.60  Elevated Heliport Takeoff Path: Category A

    Notice 90-1 proposed to add this section to introduce the 
requirements for pinnacle takeoff path, Category A. However, two 
commenters suggest using the term ``elevated'' rather than ``pinnacle'' 
since ``elevated'' is a more common term. The FAA agrees, and the word 
``pinnacle'' has been replaced with ``elevated heliport'' wherever 
used. Several commenters also recommend that the requirement for 
takeoff climb gradients be deleted from this section. Therefore, as in 
the ground-level takeoff path, the climb gradients proposed for this 
section have also been removed because data submitted by commenters 
indicate that adopting these gradients would result in an unanticipated 
decrease in payload.
    However, the FAA notes that the proposal for this section was not 
clear in Notice 90-1. The section, as proposed, would require a 
continuous maneuver from the start of the takeoff unit reaching 1,000 
feet above the takeoff surface with two specific rate-of-climb 
requirements at 200 and 1,000 feet above the takeoff surface. A 
continuous climb was never intended by the FAA. For example, if the 
descent below the takeoff surface is 200 feet, using a continuous climb 
standard would require a total initial climb of 400 feet to regain a 
point 200 feet above the takeoff surface. Therefore, climbing at a rate 
of 100 feet per minute would take

[[Page 21896]]

4 minutes to regain a point 200 feet above the takeoff surface while 
the current One Engine Inoperative (OEI) standards only require that 
2\1/2\ minutes of emergency power be available. Hence, the time for 
this descent-climb would not be compatible with the time-limited OEI 
power level that is permitted. Therefore, this paragraph has been 
clarified to indicate that the distances to be measured will be the 
vertical magnitude of any descent below the takeoff surface and the 
horizontal distance from the start of the takeoff to the point where a 
positive rate of climb is established at an airspeed of at least 
VTOSS. This will be considered to be the end of the takeoff 
distance. (See Sec. 29.61.) From the end of the takeoff distance, climb 
data will be used for the remainder of takeoff path planning. The rate-
of-climb requirements at 200 and 1,000 feet above the takeoff surface 
will remain the same but will be clearly identified as separate 
requirements and not a part of a continued takeoff maneuver. Climb 
gradients were also included in the proposal but, as previously 
discussed, are not adopted. This section is adopted with changes as 
discussed.

New 14 CFR 29.61  Takeoff Distance: Category A

    Notice 90-1 proposed to add a new section to define more clearly 
the parameters to be used in determining takeoff distance. No comments 
were received on this proposal. However, in view of the previous 
discussion of elevated heliports and the changes to Sec. 29.60, a 
second paragraph is added to more clearly define takeoff distances. 
Also, as discussed for the new Sec. 29.59, a requirement for 
considering the pilot recognition interval following engine failure is 
recognized in the new Sec. 29.61. The addition of Sec. 29.61(b) states 
explicitly that the takeoff distance for elevated heliports is defined 
the same as that for nonelevated heliports except that there is no 
requirement that the rotorcraft remain at least 35 feet above the 
takeoff surface. This provision harmonizes Title 14 and the JAR. 
Section 29.61(b) relieves applicants from the requirement to attain and 
maintain at least 35 fee of altitude when determining the takeoff 
distance from an elevated heliport. Thus, the takeoff distance will be 
shorter for rotorcraft that take off from an elevated heliport. Thus, 
the takeoff distance will be shorter for rotorcraft that take off from 
an elevated heliport that the distance needed to reach 35 feet above 
the takeoff surface as required by Sec. 29.61(a) for rotorcraft that 
take off from a nonelevated heliport. This reduction in takeoff 
distance will result from an exchange of the inherent altitude of the 
elevated heliport for airspeed and subsequently rate of climb. The FAA 
has determined that this relieving provision will neither increase the 
economic burden on any applicant nor increase the scope of this rule. 
Therefore, the proposal is adopted with the noted changes.

New 14 CFR 29.62  Rejected Takeoff: Category A

    Notice 90-1 proposed to separate the text of the rejected takeoff 
criteria from the takeoff path section and impose the restriction for 
the use of only primary controls while airborne. No comments were 
received; therefore, the proposal is adopted with the change of CDP to 
TDP, the change of ``takeoff decision'' to ``engine failure,'' and the 
addition of ``the rotorcraft continuing to takeoff decision point,'' as 
explained in the discussion of new Sec. 29.55.

New 14 CFR 29.64  Climb: General

    This new section relocates and clarifies the general climb 
requirements. No comments were received; therefore, the proposal is 
adopted without change.

14 CFR 29.65  Climb: All Engines Operating

    Notice 90-1 proposed to add a general requirement to determine 
Category a rotorcraft climb performance. Currently Category A 
rotorcraft climb performance is required only when VNE (never-
exceed speed) is less than best climb speed (VY) at sea level. No 
comments were received; therefore, the proposal is adopted without 
change.

14 CFR 29.67  Climb: One-engine-Inoperative

    Notice 90-1 proposed to include the takeoff climb gradients as a 
part of the general climb requirement, as well as the OEI climb 
requirements to be met at 200 and 1,000 feet above the takeoff surface.
    Commenters recommend that the climb gradient requirements be 
removed. The FAA agrees because data submitted by commenters indicate 
that adopting these gradients would result in an unanticipated decrease 
in payload. Therefore, the proposed climb gradient requirements are not 
adopted. However, the rate of climb requirements are adopted as 
proposed. Also, various clarifying word changes have been made 
including adding the words ``climb following'' before ``takeoff'' in 
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to clarify that the unfavorable center of gravity 
applies to the climb following takeoff. The proposal is adopted with 
the noted changes.

14 CFR 29.75  Landing: General

    Notice 90-1 proposed to revise the general landing requirements to 
separate specific requirements and to provide references to those 
specific landing requirement sections. No comments were received; 
therefore, the proposal is adopted without change.

14 CFR 29.77  Landing Decision Point

    Notice 90-1 proposed to add the new requirement for designation of 
a landing decision point (LDP), which has been an industry practice 
although not required in all recent Category A certifications. No 
comments were received; therefore, the proposal is adopted without 
change except for clarifying that, in accordance with the discussion 
for Sec. 29.55, pilot recognition time must be considered.

14 CFR 29.79  Landing: Category A

    Notice 90-1 proposed to establish the Category A landing 
requirements as a separate section with only minor revision from the 
present requirements. One commenter discusses studies and computer 
predictions for approaches and landings at elevated heliports but does 
not propose any changes. Since no changes were recommended, and the FAA 
does not see a need for any changes based on the commenters' 
discussion, the proposal is adopted without change.

New 14 CFR 29.81  Landing Distance: Category A

    Notice 90-1 proposed a new section to require landing distances to 
be determined from specific heights. One commenter suggests that the 
proposed flight profile between LDP and touchdown using an elevated 
heliport is unduly restrictive. This comment was based on the 
commenter's concern that the proposal would require consideration of a 
25-foot high screen at the approach edge of the elevated heliport. The 
FAA notes that this is not the intent of this section. The proposed 
horizontal landing distance determined from a point 25 feet higher than 
the elevated heliport need not be contained within the heliport landing 
surface. ``Pinnacle'' has been changed to ``elevated heliport'' in 
accordance with previous discussions. Therefore, the proposal is 
adopted with the change as noted.

New 14 CFR 29.83  Landing: Category B

    Notice 90-1 proposed a new Sec. 29.83 that included moving the 
Category B landing requirement presently in Sec. 29.75(c) into this new 
section and required landing distances to be determined power-on rather 
than power-off. One commenter suggests

[[Page 21897]]

deleting the requirement to avoid the unsafe area of the height-
velocity (HV) envelope since Category B rotorcraft with nine or fewer 
passengers and less than 20,000 pounds do not have the HV envelope as a 
limitation and may transit the unsafe area of the HV envelope during 
landing. The FAA disagrees. While the commenter is correct about the HV 
envelope not being a limitation for Category B rotorcraft with nine or 
fewer passengers, the FAA cannot agree with presenting data that 
include normal operations within the unsafe area of the HV envelope. 
Certain operations (e.g., external loads and hoist work) are not 
necessarily limited by the type certification HV envelope; however, the 
operator still should be aware that the operations do not involve 
normal procedures, and the operator should evaluate the risk in 
accordance with the applicable regulations (e.g., part 133). Therefore, 
the proposal is adopted without change.

New 14 CFR 29.85  Balked Landing: Category A (Old Sec. 29.77)

    Notice 90-1 proposed to redesignate present Sec. 29.77 as a new 
Sec. 29.85, to clarify the relationship between the landing decision 
point and balked landing, and to remove the prohibition against 
descending below 35 feet above the landing surface. The proposal only 
specified that the rotorcraft ``not touch down'' during descent. One 
commenter proposes that some minimum height be required. As previously 
discussed under Sec. 29.59, the FAA agrees; however, Notice 90-1 
proposed to allow the rotorcraft to descend below the current 35-foot 
height as long as it does not touch down. Therefore, the FAA issued 
Notice 90-1A to include the 15-foot minimum descent height. Three 
commenters to Notice 90-1A fully agreed with the proposed changes. One 
commenter agreed provided the working for Sec. 29.85(c) read 
identically to the wording of Notice 90-1. However, it was necessary to 
amend the wording in proposed paragraph (c) to add the minimum descent 
height restriction requirements. Otherwise, the wording is identical. 
Also, as previously discussed the term ``elevated'' will be used rather 
than ``pinnacle.'' Therefore, the proposal is adopted by adding the 15-
foot minimum descent height and the amended wording to paragraph (c) 
and by adding the phrase ``failed and failure recognized'' to paragraph 
(b) to specify that the time interval for pilot recognition of engine 
failure must be considered as discussed in Sec. 29.55.

New 14 CFR 29.87  Height-velocity Envelope (Old Sec. 29.79)

    Notice 90-1 proposed to redesignate Sec. 29.79 as a new Sec. 29.87 
and to revise the engine power conditions to be used. No comments were 
received; therefore, the proposal is adopted with only editorial 
changes.

14 CFR 29.1323  Airspeed Indicating System

    Notice 90-1 proposed to change the term ``height-speed'' to 
``height-velocity'' to agree with other changes in the proposal. No 
comments were received; therefore, the proposal is adopted without 
change.

14 CFR 29.1587  Performance Information

    Notice 90-1 proposed to change this section to conform to other 
changes in the proposal. One commenter suggests requiring, as 
performance information, the steady gradient of climb for each weight, 
altitude, and temperature for which takeoff data are scheduled for the 
two conditions between the end of the takeoff and at 1,000 feet above 
the takeoff surface. The FAA does not agree. This would require a 
significant increase in the number of flight tests for compilation of 
data and for FAA verification of this data, with resulting significant 
adverse economic impact and no perceived safety benefits. As discussed 
with respect to the new Sec. 29.49, the requirement to provide OGE 
performance data, including the maximum safe wind for the data 
presented, is added to the Category A requirements in 
Sec. 29.1587(a)(6). Also, Sec. 29.1587(b)(8) is revised to reflect that 
OGE performance data, including maximum safe wind for the data 
presented, is no longer optional. Even though the new paragraph (a)(6) 
and the revised paragraph (b)(8) were not proposed, they only require 
the presentation in the Rotorcraft Flight Manual of the new OGE 
performance data, including the maximum wind for the data presented. 
The collection of the data is now required by the new Sec. 29.49. New 
paragraph (a)(6) and revised paragraph (b)(8) state explicitly what 
would otherwise be required during the certification process to 
demonstrate compliance with the new required Sec. 29.49. In addition to 
clarifying Sec. 29.49(c), the new paragraph (a)(6) for Category A 
rotorcraft and the revised paragraph (b)(8) for Category B rotorcraft 
have identical provisions and additionally harmonize the FAR and the 
JAR. Based on these factors, the minimal burden placed on manufacturers 
of presenting the data that they are required to develop, and the 
remote likelihood of an adverse comment, it is unnecessary to solicit 
prior public comment on these nonsubstantive changes. Therefore, the 
proposal is adopted with the noted changes.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    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 directs agencies to assess the effects 
of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting these 
assessments, the FAA has determined that this rule: (1) Will generate 
benefits exceeding its costs and is not ``significant'' as defined in 
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Policies and Procedures; (3) will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities; and (4) will not impact 
international trade. These analyses, available in the docket, are 
summarized below.

Cost/Benefit Analysis

    The rule includes 31 changes to 21 sections of part 29. Twenty 
eight of the changes are either editorial in nature or update the 
regulations to correspond with current technology. Three changes, as 
discussed below, were singled out for study because they are more 
substantive in terms of cost and/or benefit impact. The FAA has 
determined that these requirements will have no or negligible economic 
impacts on manufacturers and operators.
    Section 29.49(b)--Performance at Minimum Operating Speed (Category 
B Hover Performance). This rule renumbers Sec. 29.73 to 29.49, deletes 
paragraph (b)(2), and removes the minimum hover performance requirement 
for Category B helicopters (but still requires that hover performance 
data be developed and provided by the manufacturer). There will be no 
cost impact resulting from this change, since test requirements are 
unchanged and design changes are not required. Although the same amount 
of hover performance data will still be required from manufacturers, 
operators will benefit by being able to capitalize on a small increase 
in gross weight and payload.
    Section 29.49(c)--Performance at Minimum Operating Speed (Out-of-

[[Page 21898]]

Ground Effect Hover Performance). The rule will require that 
manufacturers provide out-of-ground effect (OGE) hover ceiling data to 
operators. Manufacturers have historically provided this information on 
a voluntary basis. Industry sources estimate that requiring OGE hover 
data will add, at most, an additional 3 to 5 flight test hours. At a 
cost of $24,800 per flight test hour, this represents an additional 
cost to manufacturers of $74,400 to $124,000 (in 1994 dollars) per 
certification.
    OGE hover performance data is needed by operators that conduct 
external lift operations. If an operator were to conduct external lift 
operations without OGE hover data, the operator might pick up 
excessively heavy loads. While a single excessive load would not 
necessarily lead to an accident, it could create excessive stress on 
the dynamic components of the helicopter that could eventually lead to 
fatigue failure of a critical component and, subsequently, an accident. 
The expected benefit of averting a single accident entailing just one 
serious injury and/or moderate damage to the helicopter would easily 
exceed the upper-bound certification cost of $124,000.
    Other advantages of requiring that manufacturers provide OGE hover 
data are that: (1) Operators will no longer be concerned that 
manufacturers might arbitrarily stop providing the data, (2) operators 
may feel more confident about the data because the FAA would be 
approving it, and (3) the FAA can assure uniformity in the presentation 
of data between manufacturers.
    Section 29.83--Landing: Category B. The rule will require that 
approach and landing tests for Category B rotorcraft be made with power 
on rather than with engine power off. This is a more normal flight 
profile. This change will benefit pilots by providing more useful data 
in the flight manual for flight planning purposes since pilots normally 
plan for power-on landings. This will be particularly useful if a 
rotorcraft is operating at or near maximum gross weight in or around 
unimproved landing areas where landing distances are more critical. 
This will also increase the safety of test pilots since they will be 
required to perform fewer power-off tests. There are no or negligible 
additional costs associated with this change.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 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 proposed or final rule would 
have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, 
on a substantial number of small entities. FAA Order 2100.14A, 
Regulatory Flexibility Criteria and Guidance, prescribes standards for 
complying with RFA review requirements in FAA rulemaking actions. The 
Order defines ``small entities'' in terms of size thresholds, 
``significant economic impact'' in terms of annualized cost threshold, 
and ``substantial number'' as a number which is not less than eleven 
and which is more than one-third of the small entities subject to the 
proposed or final rule.
    The rule will affect manufacturers and operators of future type-
certificated transport category rotorcraft. For manufacturers, Order 
2100.14A specifies a size threshold for classification as a small 
entity as 75 or fewer employees. Since no part 29 rotorcraft 
manufacturer has 75 or fewer employees, the rule will not have 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
manufacturers. For operators, the benefits of increased payloads would 
probably not exceed the annualized thresholds specified in the Order; 
consequently, the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small operators.

International Trade Impact

    The rule will have little or no impact on trade for either U.S. 
firms doing business in foreign markets or foreign firms doing business 
in the United States.

Federalism Implications

    The regulations adopted 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 these 
amendments do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the 
findings in the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the 
International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA has determined that this 
regulation is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866. In addition, the FAA certifies that these changes 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. All changes are found to have negligible or no cost 
impacts. Small entities are not affected because transport rotorcraft 
are manufactured by large entities, and trade is not affected since 
foreign manufacturers also must comply with the requirements of part 
29. This proposal is considered to be nonsignificant under DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). A 
regulatory evaluation of the changes, including a Regulatory 
Flexibility Determination and International 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 Part 29

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

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends part 29 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 
(14 CFR part 29) as follows:

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

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

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

    2. Section 29.1 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 29.1  Applicability.

 * * * * *
    (e) Rotorcraft with a maximum weight of 20,000 pounds or less but 
with 10 or more passengers seats may be type certificated as category B 
rotorcraft provided the Category A requirements of Secs. 29.67(a)(2), 
29.87, 29.1517, and subparts C, D, E, and F of this part are met.
 * * * * *
    3. Section 29.73 is redesignated as Sec. 29.49 and revised to read 
as follows:


Sec. 29.49  Performance at minimum operating speed.

    (a) For each Category A helicopter, the hovering performance must 
be determined over the ranges of weight, altitude, and temperature for 
which takeoff data are scheduled--
    (1) With not more than takeoff power;
    (2) With the landing gear extended; and

[[Page 21899]]

    (3) At a height consistent with the procedure used in establishing 
the takeoff, climbout, and rejected takeoff paths.
    (b) For each Category B helicopter, the hovering performance must 
be determined over the ranges of weight, altitude, and temperature for 
which certificate is requested, with--
    (1) Takeoff power;
    (2) The landing gear extended; and
    (3) The helicopter in ground effect at a height consistent with 
normal takeoff procedures.
    (c) For each helicopter, the out-of-ground effect hovering 
performance must be determined over the ranges of weight, altitude, and 
temperature for which certification is requested with takeoff power.
    (d) For rotorcraft other than helicopters, the steady rate of climb 
at the minimum operating speed must be determined over the ranges of 
weight, altitude, and temperature for which certification is requested 
with--
    (1) Takeoff power; and
    (2) The landing gear extended.
    4. Section 29.51 is amended by revising the introductory text of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec. 29.51  Takeoff data: general.

    (a) The takeoff data required by Secs. 29.53, 29.55, 29.59, 29.60, 
29.61, 29.62, 29.63, and 29.67 must be determined--
* * * * *
    5. Section 29.53 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 29.53 Takeoff: Category A.

    The takeoff performance must be determined and scheduled so that, 
if one engine fails at any time the start of takeoff, the rotocraft 
can--
    (a) Return to, and stop safely on, the takeoff area; or
    (b) Continue the takeoff and climbout, and attain a configuration 
and airspeed allowing compliance with Sec. 29.67(a)(2).
    6. A new Sec. 29.55 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 29.55  Takeoff decision point (TDP): Category A.

    (a) The TDP is the first point from which a continued takeoff 
capability is assured under Sec. 29.59 and is the last point in the 
takeoff path from which a rejected takeoff is assured within the 
distance determined under Sec. 29.62.
    (b) The TDP must be established in relation to the takeoff path 
using no more than two parameters; e.g., airspeed and height, to 
designate the TDP.
    (c) Determination of the TDP must include the pilot recognition 
time interval following failure of the critical engine.
    7. Section 29.59 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 29.59 Takeoff path: Category A.

    (a) The takeoff path extends from the point of commencement of the 
takeoff procedure to a point at which the rotorcraft is 1,000 feet 
above the takeoff surface and compliance with Sec. 29.67(a)(2) is 
shown. In addition--
    (1) The takeoff path must remain clear of the height-velocity 
envelope established in accordance with Sec. 29.87;
    (2) The rotocraft must be flown to the engine failure point; at 
which point, the critical engine must be made inoperative and remain 
inoperative for the rest of the takeoff;
    (3) After the critical engine is made inoperative, the rotorcraft 
must continue to the takeoff decision point, and then attain 
VTOSS;
    (4) Only primary controls may be used while attaining VTOSS 
and while establishing a positive rate of climb. Secondary controls 
that are located on the primary controls may be used after a positive 
rate of climb and VTOSS are established but in no case less than 3 
seconds after the critical engine is made inoperative; and
    (5) After attaining VTOSS and a positive a climb, the landing 
gear may be retracted.
    (b) During the takeoff path determination made in accordance with 
paragraph (a) of this section and after attaining VTOSS and a 
positive rate of climb, the climb must be continued at a speed as close 
as practicable to, but not less than, VTOSS until the rotocraft is 
200 feet above the takeoff surface. During this interval, the climb 
performance must meet or exceed that required by Sec. 29.67(a)(1).
    (c) From 200 feet above the takeoff surface, the rotorcraft takeoff 
path must be level or positive until a height 1,000 feet above the 
takeoff surface is attained with not less than the rate of climb 
required by Sec. 29.67(a)(2). Any secondary or auxiliary control may be 
used after attaining 200 feet above the takeoff surface.
    (d) Takeoff distance will be determined in accordance with 
Sec. 29.61.
    (e) During the continued takeoff, the rotorcraft shall not descend 
below 15 feet above the takeoff surface when the takeoff decision point 
is above 15 feet.
    8. A new Sec. 29.60 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 29.60  Elevated heliport takeoff path: Category A.

    (a) The elevated heliport takeoff path extends from the point of 
commencement of the takeoff procedure to a point in the takeoff path at 
which the rotorcraft is 1,000 feet above the takeoff surface and 
compliance with Sec. 29.67(a)(2) is shown. In addition--
    (1) The requirements of Sec. 29.59(a) must be met;
    (2) While attaining VTOSS and a positive rate of climb, the 
rotocraft may descend below the level of the takeoff surface if, in so 
doing and when clearing the elevated heliport edge, every part of the 
rotocraft clears all obstacles by at least 15 feet;
    (3) The vertical magnitude of any descent below the takeoff surface 
must be determined; and
    (4) After attaining VTOSS and a positive rate of climb, the 
landing gear may be retracted.
    (b) The scheduled takeoff weight must be such that the climb 
requirements of Sec. 29.67 (a)(1) and (a)(2) will be met.
    (c) Takeoff distance will be determined in accordance with 
Sec. 29.61.
    9. A new Sec. 29.61 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 29.61  Takeoff distance: Category A.

    (a) The normal takeoff distance is the horizontal distance along 
the takeoff path from the start of the takeoff to the point at which 
the rotorcraft attains and remains at least 35 feet above the takeoff 
surface, attains and maintains a speed of at least VTOSS, and 
establishes a positive rate of climb, assuming the critical engine 
failure occurs at the engine failure point prior to the takeoff 
decision point.
    (b) For elevated heliports, the takeoff distance is the horizontal 
distance along the takeoff path from the start of the takeoff to the 
point at which the rotorcraft attains and maintains a speed of at least 
VTOSS and establishes a positive rate of climb, assuming the 
critical engine failure occurs at the engine failure point prior to the 
takeoff decision point.
    10. A new Sec. 29.62 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 29.62  Rejected takeoff: Category A.

    The rejected takeoff distance and procedures for each condition 
where takeoff is approved will be established with--
    (a) The takeoff path requirements of Secs. 29.59 and 29.60 being 
used up to the engine failure point, the rotorcraft continuing to 
takeoff decision point, and the rotorcraft landed and brought to a stop 
on the takeoff surface;
    (b) The remaining engines operating within approved limits;
    (c) The landing gear remaining extended throughout the entire 
rejected takeoff; and
    (d) The use of only the primary controls until the rotorcraft is on 
the

[[Page 21900]]

ground. Secondary controls located on the primary control may not be 
used until the rotorcraft is on the ground. Means other than wheel 
brakes may be used to stop the rotorcraft if the means are safe and 
reliable and consistent results can be expected under normal operating 
conditions.
    11. A new Sec. 29.64 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 29.64  Climb: general.

    Compliance with the requirements of Secs. 29.65 and 29.67 must be 
shown at each weight, altitude, and temperature within the operational 
limits established for the rotorcraft and with the most unfavorable 
center of gravity for each configuration. Cowl flaps, or other means of 
controlling the engine-cooling air supply, will be in the position that 
provides adequate cooling at the temperatures and altitudes for which 
certification is requested.
    12. Section 29.65 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows and by removing paragraph (c):


Sec. 29.65 Climb:  all engines operating.

    (a) The steady rate of climb must be determined--
    (1) With maximum continuous power;
    (2) With the landing gear retracted; and
    (3) A Vy for standard sea level conditions and at speeds 
selected by the applicant for other conditions.
* * * * *
    13. Section 29.67 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. Climb:  one-engine-inoperative (OEI).

    (a) For Category A rotorcraft, in the critical takeoff 
configuration existing along the takeoff path, the following apply:
    (1) The steady rate of climb without ground effect, 200 feet above 
the takeoff surface, must be at least 100 feet per minute for each 
weight, altitude, and temperature for which takeoff data are to be 
scheduled with--
    (i) The critical engine inoperative and the remaining engines 
within approved operating limitations, except that for rotorcraft for 
which the use of 30-second/2-minute OEI power is requested, only the 2-
minute OEI power may be used in showing compliance with this paragraph;
    (ii) The landing gear extended; and
    (iii) The takeoff safety speed selected by the applicant.
    (2) The steady rate of climb without ground effect at 1,000 feet 
above the takeoff surface must be at least 150 feet per minute for each 
weight altitude, and temperature for which takeoff data are to be 
scheduled with--
    (i) The critical engine inoperative and the remaining engines at 
maximum continuous power including OEI maximum continuous power, if 
approved, or at 30-minute power for rotorcraft for which certification 
for use of 30-minute power is requested;
    (ii) The most unfavorable center of gravity for climb following 
takeoff;
    (iii) The landing gear retracted; and
    (iv) The speed selected by the applicant.
    (3) The steady rate of climb (or descent) in feet per minute, at 
each altitude and temperature at which the rotocraft is expected to 
operate and at any weight within the range of weights for which 
certification is requested, must be determined with--
    (i) The critical engine inoperative and the remaining engines at 
maximum continuous power including OEI maximum continuous power, if 
approved, and at 30-minute power for rotorcraft for which certification 
for the use of 30-minute power is requested;
    (ii) The landing gear retracted; and
    (iii) The speed selected by the applicant.
    (b) For multiengine Category B rotorcraft meeting the Category A 
engine isolation requirements, the steady rate of climb (or descent) 
must be determined at the speed for best rate of climb (or minimum rate 
of descent) at each altitude, temperature, and weight at which the 
rotorcraft is expected to operate, with the critical engine inoperative 
and the remaining engines at maximum continuous power including OEI 
maximum continuous power, if approved, and at 30-minute power for 
rotorcraft for which certification for the use of 30-minute power is 
requested.
    14. Section 29.75 is revised as follows:


Sec. 29.75  Landing: general.

    (a) For each rotorcraft--
    (1) The corrected landing data must be determined for a smooth, 
dry, hard, and level surface;
    (2) The approach and landing must not require exceptional piloting 
skill or exceptionally favorable conditions; and
    (3) The landing must be made without excessive vertical 
acceleration or tendency to bounce, nose over, ground loop, porpoise, 
or water loop.
    (b) The landing data required by Secs. 29.77, 29.79, 29.81, 29.83, 
and 29.85 must be determined--
    (1) At each weight, altitude, and temperature for which landing 
data are approved;
    (2) With each operating engine within approved operating 
limitations; and
    (3) With the most unfavorable center of gravity.
    15. Section 29.77 is redesignated as Sec. 29.85 and a new 
Sec. 29.77 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 29.77  Landing decision point: Category A.

    The landing decision point (LDP) must be established at not less 
than the last point in the approach and landing path at which a balked 
landing can be accomplished under Sec. 29.85 with the critical engine 
failed or failing and with the engine failure recognized by the pilot.
    16. Section 29.79 is redesignated as Sec. 29.87 and a new 
Sec. 29.79 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 29.79  Landing: Category A.

    (a) For Category A rotorcraft--
    (1) The landing performance must be determined and scheduled so 
that if the critical engine fails at any point in the approach path, 
the rotorcraft can either land and stop safely or climb out and attain 
a rotorcraft configuration and speed allowing compliance with the climb 
requirement of Sec. 29.67(a)(2);
    (2) The approach and landing paths must be established with the 
critical engine inoperative so that the transition between each stage 
can be made smoothly and safely;
    (3) The approach and landing speeds must be selected by the 
applicant and must be appropriate to the type of rotorcraft; and
    (4) The approach and landing path must be established to avoid the 
critical areas of the height-velocity envelope determined in accordance 
with Sec. 29.87.
    (b) It must be possible to make a safe landing on a prepared 
landing surface after complete power failure occurring during normal 
cruise.
    17. A new Sec. 29.81 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 29.81  Landing distance: Category A

    The horizontal distance required to land and come to a complete 
stop (or to a speed of approximately 3 knots for water landings) from a 
point 50 feet above the landing surface (25 feet for Category A 
elevated heliport landing operations) must be determined from the 
approach and landing paths established in accordance with Sec. 29.79.
    18. A new Sec. 29.83 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 29.83  Landing: Category B.

    (a) For each Category B rotorcraft, the horizontal distance 
required to land and come to a complete stop (or to a speed of 
approximately 3 knots for water landings) from a point 50 feet above 
the landing surface must be determined with--

[[Page 21901]]

    (1) Speeds appropriate to the type of rotocraft and chosen by the 
applicant to avoid the critical areas of the height-velocity envelope 
established under Sec. 29.87; and
    (2) The approach and landing made with power on and within approved 
limits.
    (b) Each multiengined Category B rotorcraft that meets the 
powerplant installation requirements for Category A must meet the 
requirements of--
    (1) Sections 29.79 and 29.81; or
    (2) Paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) It must be possible to make a safe landing on a prepared 
landing surface if complete power failure occurs during normal cruise.
    19. Redesignated Sec. 29.85 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 29.85  Balked landing: Category A.

    For Category A rotocraft, the balked landing path must be 
established so that--
    (a) With the critical engine inoperative, the transition from each 
stage of the maneuver to the next stage can be made smoothly and 
safely;
    (b) With the critical engine failed and the failure recognized at 
the landing decision point on the approach path selected by the 
applicant, a safe climbout can be made at speeds allowing compliance 
with the climb requirements of Sec. 29.67(a) (1) and (2); and
    (c) The rotocraft does not descend below 15 feet above the landing 
surface. For elevated heliport operations, descent may be below the 
level of the landing surface provided the deck edge clearance of 
Sec. 29.60 is maintained and the descent distance below the landing 
surface is determined.
    20. Redesignated Sec. 29.87 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 29.87 Height-velocity envelope.

    (a) If there is any combination of height and forward velocity 
(including hover) under which a safe landing cannot be made after 
failure of the critical engine and with the remaining engines (where 
applicable) operating within approved limits, a height-velocity 
envelope must be established for--
    (1) All combinations of pressure altitude and ambient temperature 
for which takeoff and landing are approved; and
    (2) Wright from the maximum weight (at sea level) to the highest 
weight approved for takeoff and landing at each altitude. For 
helicopters, this weight need not exceed the highest weight allowing 
hovering out-of-ground effect at each altitude.
    (b) For single-engine or multiengine rotorcraft that do not meet 
the Category A engine isolation requirements, the height-velocity 
envelope for complete power failure must be established.
     Section 29.1323 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 29.1323  Airspeed indicating system.

* * * * *
    (b) *  *  *
    (2) *  *  *
    (ii) Avoidance of the critical areas of the height-velocity 
envelope as established under Sec. 29.87.
* * * * *
    22. Section 29.1587 is amended by revising (a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(3) 
and (b)(8) and adding a new (a)(6) to read as follows:


Sec. 29.1587  Performance information.

* * * * *
    (a) *  *  *
    (4) The rejected takeoff distance determined under Sec. 29.62 and 
the takeoff distance determined under Sec. 29.61 or Sec. 29.63;
    (5) The landing data determined under Sec. 29.81 or Sec. 29.83; and
    (6) Out-of-ground effect hover performance determined under 
Sec. 29.49 and the maximum safe wind demonstrated under the ambient 
conditions for data presented.
    (b) *  *  *
    (3) The landing distance, appropriate airspeed, and type of landing 
surface, together with all pertinent information that might affect this 
distance, including the effects of weight, altitude, and temperature;
* * * * *
    (8) Out-of-ground effect hover performance determined under 
Sec. 29.49 and the maximum safe wind demonstrated under the ambient 
conditions for data presented; and
* * * * *
    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 2, 1996.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-11494 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M