[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 110 (Monday, June 9, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31476-31479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14885]


      

[[Page 31475]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Parts 27 and 29



Harmonization of Miscellaneous Rotorcraft Regulations; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 110 / Monday, June 9, 1997 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 31476]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

[Docket No. 28929; Notice No. 97-8]
RIN 2120-AG23


Harmonization of Miscellaneous Rotorcraft Regulations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes changes to the type certification 
requirements for normal and transport category rotorcraft. The change 
would amend the airworthiness standards to require a cockpit indication 
of autopilot operating mode to the pilots for certain autopilot 
configurations, to clarify the burn test requirements for electrical 
wiring for transport category rotorcraft, and to provide a new 
requirement for an electrical wire burn test for normal category 
rotorcraft. The proposed rule would also add a 1.33 fitting factor 
structural strength requirement to the attachment of litters and 
berths. The proposed changes to 14 CFR parts 27 and 29 (parts 27 and 
29) are harmonized with the European Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) 
27 and 29.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Office of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules 
Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 28929; Room 915G, 800 Independence Avenue 
SW, Washington, DC 20591. Comments submitted must be marked Docket No. 
28929. Comments may also be sent electronically to the following 
internet address: [email protected]. Comments may be examined in 
Room 915G weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on Federal 
holidays.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the 
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as 
they may desire. 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 must identify the regulatory 
docket or notice number and be submitted in triplicate to the Rules 
Docket at the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES.
    All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each 
substantive public contact with FAA personnel on this rulemaking, will 
be filed in the docket. The docket is available for public inspection 
before and after the comment closing date.
    All comments received on or before the closing date will be 
considered before taking action on this proposal. Late-filed comments 
will be considered to the extent practicable. The proposals contained 
in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received.
    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 
to Docket No. 28929.'' The postcard will be date stamped and mailed to 
the commenter.

Availability of NPRM's

    Using a modem and suitable communications software, an electronic 
copy of this document may be downloaded from the FAA regulations 
section of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 
703-321-3339), the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service 
(telephone: 202-512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee Bulletin Board service (telephone: 202-267-5948).
    Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov 
or the Federal Register's webpage at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs 
for access to recently published rulemaking documents.
    Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request 
to the FAA, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Communications must 
identify the 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, that describes the application 
procedure.

Background

    The FAA has established an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 
(ARAC). By a notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 4221, January 20, 
1995), the FAA announced the establishment of the Harmonization of 
Miscellaneous Rotorcraft Regulations Working Group. The Working Group 
was tasked to recommend to ARAC new or revised requirements for pilot 
indication of autopilot operating mode; burn test for electrical wire; 
seats, berths, and litters; and other rotorcraft issues. Specifically, 
the working group received the following tasks:
    1. Review Secs. 1329 and 29.1329 and supporting policy and guidance 
material for the purpose of determining the course of action to be 
taken for rulemaking and/or policy relative to the issue of requiring 
pilot indication of autopilot operating mode similar to parts 23 and 25 
requirements.
    2. Review parts 27 and 29 to determine if clarification is needed 
for the burn test requirements for transports category and whether a 
new requirement for burn test for electrical wire for normal category 
rotorcraft is needed. Consider whether Sec. 29.1351(d)(3) should be 
deleted and if new Secs. 27.1365(c) and 29.1359(c) should be created to 
specify electrical wire insulation burn test requirements.
    3. Review Secs. 27.785(f)(2) and 29.785(f)(2) to determine if these 
sections should be revised to specify whether the 1.33 fitting factor 
for seats should also apply to berths and litters.
    4. Review and make recommendations regarding the disharmonizations 
introduced by the new Rotorcraft 30 Second/2 Minute One-Engine 
Inoperative Power Ratings (OIE) (59 FR 47764; September 16, 1994) and 
the Crash Resistant Fuel Systems (CRS) in Normal and Transport Category 
Rotorcraft (59 FR 50380; October 3, 1994) final rules.
    The working group included representatives from four major 
rotorcraft manufacturers (normal and transport) and representatives 
from Aerospace Industries Association of American, Inc. (AIA), 
Association Europeene des Constructeurs de Material Aerospatial 
(AECMA), Helicopter Association International (HAI), the European Joint 
Aviation Authorities (JAA), and the FAA Rotorcraft Directorate. This 
broad participation is consistent with FAA policy to involve all known 
interested parties as early as practicable in the rulemaking process.
    The working group presented its findings to the ARAC, which 
recommended to the FAA the certain miscellaneous changes be made to the 
airworthiness standards for both parts 27 and 29.

[[Page 31477]]

    The FAA has evaluated and accepted the ARAB recommendations and 
proposes the change contained in this notice.

General Discussion of the Proposals

    The following changes are proposed to the airworthiness standard 
for normal and transport category rotorcraft.

Sections 27.625 and 29.625 Fitting Factors

    A new paragraph (d) would be added to Secs. 27.625 and 29.625 to 
require that the 1.33 fitting factor, specified in Secs. 27.785 and 
29.785 for the attachment of seats, also applies to the attachment for 
litters and berths. The 1.33 fitting factor is necessary to ensure that 
fittings subject to wear and tear under normal use and subject to 
frequent removal and replacement in the aircraft will retain adequate 
strength to perform their intended function under crash landing 
conditions. The need for this factor for seat attachments and 
associated harnesses has been substantiated by service experience and 
is recognized in 14 CFR parts 23, 25, 27, and 29 and in the equivalent 
JAR. Also, the need for the 1.33 factor for the attachment of litters, 
berths, and associated harnesses is included in parts 23 and 25 and JAR 
23 and 25 but is not currently included in parts 27 and 29 or JAR 27 
and 29. This proposed change would provide the same level of safety for 
passengers in litters and berths as in seats and would harmonize the 
fitting factor requirement of parts 23, 25, 27, 29 and the JAR.

Sections 27.785 and 29.785 Seats, Berths, Litters, Safety Belts, and 
Harnesses

    Since the requirements for litters and berths are specified in 
Secs. 27.785(k) and 29.785(k), a new sentence to paragraph (k)(2) is 
proposed to clarify the requirement for applying the 1.33 fitting 
factor. This proposed revision would clarify that the 1.33 fitting 
factor for the attachment of seats specified in proposed 
Secs. 27.625(d) and 29.625(d) also applies to the attachment of litters 
and berths.

Sections 27.975 and 29.975 Fuel Tank Vents

    This proposed revision would remove the phrase ``unless a rollover 
is shown to be extremely remote'' from Secs. 27.975(b) and 
29.975(a)(7). The JAA states that the phrase ``unless a rollover is 
shown to be extremely remote'' results in weakening the desired 
requirement, so that a postcrash fire could occur on an aircraft not 
equipped with rollover protection. The FAA agrees that the intent of 
this rule is to prevent postcrash fires due to rollover and concludes 
that the phrase does not contribute to the desired result. Also, this 
proposed revision would resolve a difference between parts 27 and 29 
and JAR 27 and 29 introduced by the Crash Resistant Fuel Systems final 
rule noted earlier.

Sections 27.1329 and 29.1329 Automatic Pilot System

    A new paragraph (f) would be added to Secs. 27.1329 and 29.1329 to 
require display of the autopilot mode to the pilots. Current parts 23 
and 25 require that ``If the automatic pilot system can be coupled to 
airborne navigation equipment, means must be provided to indicate to 
the flight crew the current mode of operation. Selector switch position 
is not acceptable as a means indication.'' Airplane accidents occurred 
prior to adoption of the requirement of the display of the autopilot 
mode in parts 23 and 25 due to the pilot not being aware of the current 
autopilot mode. This type of accident could occur in rotorcraft. Safety 
will be enhanced by requiring that the autopilot mode be displayed to 
the pilots of rotorcraft. This would harmonize parts 27 and 29 with the 
corresponding JAR.

Section 27.1365 Electric Cables

    A new paragraph (c) to Sec. 27.1365 is proposed that would add a 
burn test to require self-extinguishing insulation on electrical wire 
and cable installed in normal category rotorcraft. Most European and 
U.S. rotorcraft manufacturers currently use electrical wire that meets 
the proposed burn test requirements. This proposal would require that 
compliant wire be used.

Section 29.923 Rotor Drive System and Control Mechanism Tests

    The proposed revision to Sec. 29.923(a) would add the words, ``and 
(p),'' after the words ``paragraphs (b) through (n).'' The ``and p'' 
was inadvertently omitted by the OEI final rule, Amendment 29-35. This 
change is proposed to correct the oversight and to harmonize part 29 
with the JAR requirement.

Section 29.1351 General

    The proposal would delete the burn test requirements of 
Sec. 29.1351(d)(1)(iii) and the reference to Sec. 25.1359(d) contained 
in it. Section 25.1359(d) was removed from part 25 by Amendment 25-72 
(55 FR 29756; July 20, 1990). The proposal would move the electrical 
wire burn test requirements to a new Sec. 29.1359(c) and cite the 
correct reference, part 25, Appendix F, Part I(a)(3). The proposed 
change is administrative and will not alter the current requirements.

Section 29.1359 Electrical System Fire and Smoke Protection

    As discussed in the previous paragraph, new Sec. 29.1359(c) would 
contain the electrical wire burn test requirements. The proposal would 
add paragraph (c) to this section to place the requirement under a more 
appropriate heading. The proposed change is administrative and will not 
alter the current requirements.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no requirements for information collection associated 
with this proposed rule that would require approval under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3501 et seq.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several 
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each 
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its 
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies 
to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. 
Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess 
the effects of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting 
these analyses, the FAA has determined that this proposed rule: (1) 
would generate benefits that justify its costs and is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order; 
(2) is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures; (3) would not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities; and (4) would lessen restraints on 
international trade. These analyses, available in the docket, are 
summarized below.

Economic Evaluation

    Overall, the proposed changes would result in net cost savings by 
promoting harmonization between the U.S. regulations and the JAR and by 
eliminating unnecessary duplication of certification requirements. The 
costs and benefits of the changes regarding the fitting factor for the 
attachment of berths and litters, removal of the phrase ``unless a 
rollover is shown to be extremely remote'' (in Secs. 27.975(b) and 
29.975(a)(7)), autopilot operating mode, and burn test for electrical 
wire in normal category rotorcraft, are

[[Page 31478]]

summarized below. All other revisions involve clarification or 
administrative changes.
    The fitting factor requirement would not impose incremental costs 
on most rotorcraft manufacturers. One small manufacturer of part 27 
rotorcraft indicated additional nonrecurring testing and analysis costs 
of $2,000 to substantiate the 1.33 factor in an initial new type 
certification; most likely, this additional cost would not be incurred 
in subsequent type certifications. Although there have been no 
identifiable accidents involving litters attributable to insufficient 
attachment strength, even one minor injury would far exceed the 
relatively low costs. Codification of the 1.33 fitting factor, which is 
inherent in most current designs, would ensure that all future designs 
include this standard, increasing the minimum level of safety.
    There would be no incremental costs or benefits associated with 
removal of the phrase ``unless a rollover is shown to be extremely 
remote'' in Secs. 27.975(b) and 29.975(a)(7) since rotocraft currently 
meet the minimum fuel spillage requirements under roll-over conditions.
    The autopilot display requirement would impose no or insignificant 
incremental costs on rotocraft manufacturers since new autopilot 
systems employed in rotocraft are similar to those in airplanes and the 
mode indicator is typically integral to such systems. Codification of 
this requirement would ensure that all future rotocraft designs comply 
with this standard.
    Most U.S. and European manufacturers currently use electrical wire 
that meets the burn test requirements for transport category rotocraft 
since they produce both part 27 and part 29 rotocraft. However, the few 
manufacturers that product normal category rotocraft only would likely 
experience additional costs. One manufacturer estimates additional 
nonrecurring testing/design costs at $5,000 per type certification and 
additional wiring costs of $500 per rotocraft. At an estimated 
production of seven rotocraft per year, the incremental recurring costs 
would total $3,500 per year for 10 years, or $35,000 total 
(nondiscounted 1995 dollars), under one type certification. Another 
manufacturer estimates additional wiring costs of approximately $350 
per rotocraft and no additional nonrecurring costs. At an estimated 
production of 20 rotocraft per year, the incremental recurring costs 
would total $7,000 per year for 10 years, or $70,000 total 
(nondiscounted 1995 dollars), under one type certification.
    There have been several accidents (and more numerous Service 
Difficulty Reports) related directly or indirectly to shorted or 
burned-through electrical wiring; i.e., the insulation offered 
insufficient protection. Examination of National Transportation Safety 
Board accident and incident data for the period 1983 through 1995 
indicates one accident (in June 1994) caused primarily by a short in 
the electric wiring that burned a hole in the main fuel line. The post-
impact fire destroyed the normal category helicopter. There is a strong 
possibility that the proposed burn test requirements could have 
prevented this accident. Benefits in terms of averted equipment damage 
and just one or two minor injuries from an accident involving a part 27 
rotocraft would easily exceed the incremental costs of this proposal. 
Codification of this requirement would ensure that all future designs 
comply, increasing the minimum level of safety.
    Based on the findings of no significant incremental costs coupled 
with the benefits of harmonization savings and higher levels of safety, 
the FAA has determined that the proposed rule would be cost-beneficial.

Initial 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 requirements in FAA rulemaking actions. The Order 
defines ``small entities'' in terms of size, ``significant economic 
impact'' in terms of annualized costs, and `'substantial number'' as a 
number that is not less than 11 and which is more than one-third of the 
small entities subject to a proposed or final rule.
    The proposed rule would affect manufacturers of future type-
certificated normal and transport category rotocraft. For aircraft 
manufacturers, Order 2100.14A defines a small entity as one with 75 or 
fewer employees and a significant economic impact as annualized costs 
of at least $19,500 (1995 dollars). The FAA has determined that the 
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small manufacturers since (1) no part 29 and only 
two part 27 rotorcraft manufacturers have 75 or fewer employees, and 
(2) the annualized incremental costs of the rule are less than $19,500.

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. Each applicant for a new type certificate for 
normal and transport category rotorcraft, whether the applicant be U.S. 
or foreign, will be required to show compliance with this rule.

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, is not subject to centralized regulatory review by the OIRA. 
In addition, the FAA certifies that his 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

14 CFR Part 27

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

14 CFR Part 29

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

The Proposed Amendments

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR 
parts 27 and 29 as follows:

[[Page 31479]]

PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

    1. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:

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

    2. In Sec. 27.625, a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 27.625  Fitting factors.

* * * * *
    (d) Each seat, berth, litter, safety belt and harness attachment to 
the structure must be shown by analysis, tests, or both, to be able to 
withstand the inertia forces prescribed in Sec. 27.561(b)(3) multiplied 
by a fitting factor of 1.33.
    3. Section 27.785 is amended by revising the heading and by adding 
a new sentence to the end of paragraph (k)(2) to read as follows:


Sec. 27.785  Seats, berths, litters, safety belts, and harnesses.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (2) * * * The fitting factor required by Sec. 27.625(d) shall be 
applied.


Sec. 27.975  [Amended]

    4. In Sec. 27.975, paragraph (b) is amended by removing the words 
``, unless a rollover is shown to be extremely remote''.
    5. In Sec. 27.1329, a new paragraph (f) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 27.1329  Automatic pilot system.

* * * * *
    (f) If the automatic pilot system can be coupled to airborne 
navigation equipment, means must be provided to indicate to the pilots 
the current mode of operation. Selector switch position is not 
acceptable as a means of indication.
    6. In Sec. 27.1365, a new paragraph (c) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 27.1365  Electric cables.

* * * * *
    (c) Insulation on electrical wire and cable installed in the 
rotorcraft must be self-extinguishing when tested in accordance with 
Appendix F, Part I(a)(3) of part 25 of this chapter.

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

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

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

    8. In Sec. 29.625, a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 29.625  Fitting factors.

* * * * *
    (d) Each seat, berth, litter, safety belt and harness attachment to 
the structure must be shown by analysis, tests, or both, to be able to 
withstand the inertia forces prescribed in Sec. 29.561(b)(3) multiplied 
by a fitting factor of 1.33.
    9. Section 29.785 is amended by revising the heading and by adding 
a new sentence to the end of paragraph (k)(2) to read as follows:


Sec. 29.785  Seats, berths, litters, safety belts, and harnesses.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (2) * * * The fitting factor required by Sec. 29.625(d) shall be 
applied.


Sec. 29.923  [Amended]

    10. In Sec. 29.923, the first sentence of the introductory text of 
paragraph (a) is revised by adding the phrase ``and (p)'' immediately 
following the reference to paragraph (n).


Sec. 29.975  [Amended]

    11. In Sec. 29.975, paragraph (a)(7) is amended by removing the 
words ``, unless a rollover is shown to be extremely remote''.
    12. In Sec. 29.1329, a new paragraph (f) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 29.1329  Automatic pilot system.

* * * * *
    (f) If the automatic pilot system can be coupled to airborne 
navigation equipment, means must be provided to indicate to the pilots 
the current mode of operation. Selector switch position is not 
acceptable as a means of indication.
    13. In Sec. 29.1351, paragraph (d)(1)(iii) is removed.


Sec. 29.1351  General.

    14. In Sec. 29.1359, a new paragraph (c) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 29.1359  Electrical system fire and smoke protection.

* * * * *
    (c) Insulation on electrical wire and cable installed in the 
rotorcraft must be self-extinguishing when tested in accordance with 
Appendix F, Part I(a)(3) of part 25 of this chapter.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 30, 1997.
Thomas E. McSweeney,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service,   AIR-1.
[FR Doc. 97-14885 Filed 6-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M