[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 155 (Wednesday, August 12, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43282-43285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21609]



[[Page 43281]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Parts 27 and 29



Harmonization of Miscellaneous Rotorcraft Regulations; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 155 / Wednesday, August 12, 1998 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 43282]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

[Docket No. 28929; Amendment Nos. 27-35 & 29-42]
RIN 2120-AG23


Harmonization of Miscellaneous Rotorcraft Regulations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending the airworthiness standards for normal and 
transport category rotorcraft. The changes amend the airworthiness 
standards to require a cockpit indication of autopilot operating mode 
to the pilots for certain autopilot configurations, to clarify the burn 
test requirements for electrical wiring for transport category 
rotorcraft, and to provide a new requirement for an electrical wire 
burn test for normal category rotorcraft. The rule also adds a 1.33 
fitting factor structural strength requirement to the attachment of 
litters and berths.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carroll Wright, Regulations Group, 
Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, Worth, 
Texas 76193-0111, telephone number (817) 222-5120, fax (817) 222-5961.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Final Rules

    Using a moderm and suitable communications software, an electronic 
copy of this document may be downloaded from the FAA regulations 
section of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 
703-321-3339), the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service 
(telephone: 202-512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee (ARAC) Bulletin Board service (telephone: 800-322-2722 or 
202-267-5948).
    Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/
avr/arm/nprm/nprm/htm or the Federal Register webpage at http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs/aces/aces 140.html for access to recently 
published rulemaking documents.
    Any person may obtain a coy of this final rule by submitting a 
request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 
ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 
calling 202-267-9680. Communications must identify the amendment number 
of docket number of this final rule.
    Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future 
Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NRPMs) and Final Rules should request 
from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, NPRM 
Distribution System, that describes the application procedure.

Small Entity Inquiries

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 
(SBREFA) requires the FAA to report inquiries from small entities 
concerning information on, and advice about, compliance with statutes 
and regulations within the FAA's jurisdiction, including interpretation 
and application of the law to specific sets of facts supplied by a 
small entity.
    If you are a small entity and have a question, contact your local 
FAA official. If you do not know how to contact your local FAA 
official, you may contact Charlene Brown, Program Analyst Staff, Office 
of Rulemaking, ARM-27, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, 1-888-551-1594. 
Internet users can find additional information on SBREFA in the ``Quick 
Jump'' section of the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov and may send 
electronic inquiries to the following internet address: 9-AWA-
[email protected].

Background

    These amendments are based on NPRM No. 97-8 published in the 
Federal Register on June 9, 1997 (62 FR 31475). That notice proposed to 
amend the airworthiness standards for both normal and transport 
category rotorcraft based on recommendations from the ARAC. By 
announcement in the Federal Register (60 FR 4221, January 20, 1995), 
the ``Harmonization of Miscellaneous Rotorcraft Regulations Working 
Group'' was chartered by the ARAC. The working group included 
representatives from the major rotorcraft manufacturers (normal and 
transport) and representatives from Aerospace Industries Association of 
America, Inc. (AIA), Association Europeene des Constructeurs de 
Material Aerospatial (AECMA), Helicopter Association International 
(HAI), Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), and the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) Rotorcraft Directorate. This broad participation 
is consistent with FAA policy to have all known interested parties 
involved as early as practicable in the rulemaking process.
    On January 9, 1996, the Miscellaneous Harmonization Working Group 
submitted recommendations to the ARAC concerning the need (1) to 
provide a cockpit indication of autopilot operating mode to the pilots 
for certain autopilot configurations, (2) to clarify the burn test 
requirements for electrical wiring for transport category rotorcraft, 
(3) to provide a new requirement for an electrical wire burn test for 
normal category rotorcraft, and (4) to add a 1.33 fitting factor 
structural strength requirement to the attachment of litters and 
berths. The working group also submitted recommendations to ARAC 
concerning the disharmonizations introduced by the new Rotorcraft 30 
Second/2 Minute One-Engine Inoperative Power Ratings (OEI) (59 FR 
47764; September 16, 1994) and the Crash Resistant Fuel Systems (CRFS) 
in Normal and Transport Category Rotorcraft (59 FR 50380; October 3, 
1994) final rules.
    The ARAC reviewed the working group recommendations and 
subsequently recommended that the FAA revise the airworthiness 
standards for normal and transport category rotorcraft to incorporate 
the miscellaneous changes. The changes to 14 CFR parts 27 and 29 (parts 
27 and 29) are harmonized with the European Joint Aviation Requirements 
(JAR) 27 and 29.
    The FAA evaluated the ARAC recommendations and made its proposals 
in NPRM 97-8. The FAA received two comments to the proposed 
miscellaneous changes.

Discussion of Comments

    Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate 
in the making of these amendments. Due consideration was given to the 
comments received from the two commenters. One commenter representing 
HAI was fully supportive of the proposed changes.
    Another commenter recommended changes to the proposed part 27 
electrical wire burn test requirements. This commenter does not believe 
self-extinguishing wire is required for low amperage installation and 
requested the following wording be added to Sec. 27.1365: ``* * * To 
require self-extinguishing installation of electrical wire and cable 
larger than 18 gauge and carrying current draws of over 5 amps per 
wire. Multi-strand cable with over 4 strands in a closed cable sheave 
are exempt from this requirement * * *'' The FAA does not agree to 
exempt multi-strand wires or 18 gauge wires or smaller. Any wire, 
regardless of size or number of strands, may constitute a fire hazard. 
Small gauge wires may be

[[Page 43283]]

routed in wire bundles with larger gauge wires. Any fire in the wire 
bundle would be fueled by nonself-extinguishing wire and thereby defeat 
the purpose of the rule.
    After considering all of the comments, the FAA has determined that 
air safety and the public interest require adoption of the amendments 
are proposed.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
Sec. 3507(d)), there are no requirements for information collection 
associated with this final use.

International Compatibility

    The FAA has determined that a review of the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation Standards and Recommended Practices is not 
warranted because there is not a comparable rule under International 
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several 
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each 
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its 
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) requires 
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small 
entities. Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies 
to assess the effects of regulatory changes on international trade. And 
fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) 
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation). In conducting these 
analyses, the FAA has determined that this rule: (1) will generate 
benefits that justify its costs and is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' as defined in the Executive Order; (2) is not ``significant'' 
as defined as DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (3) will not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities; 
(4) will lessen restraints on international trade; and (5) does not 
contain a significant intergovernmental or private sector mandate. 
These analyses, available in the docket, are summarized below.

Economic Evaluation

    The revisions will impose no incremental costs on the larger 
manufacturers that produce both part 27 and 29 rotorcraft. For smaller 
manufacturers producing only part 27 rotorcraft, there will be 
incremental costs totalling approximately $60,000 (nondiscounted 1997 
dollars) per type certification. For some manufacturers of specialized 
equipment in part 27 rotorcraft, incremental cost could equal an 
additional $500 per rotorcraft. Overall, the changes will increase 
safety and promote harmonization between FAA and JAA regulations. 
Harmonization will eliminate unnecessary duplication of certification 
requirements (e.g., testing/design), thus reducing manufacturers' 
costs.
    The costs and benefits of the changes regarding the fitting factor 
for berths and litters, removal of the phrase ``unless a rollover is 
shown to be extremely remote'' (in Secs. 27.975(b) and 29.975(a)(7)), 
autopilot operating mode, and burn test for electrical wire in normal 
category rotorcraft are summarized below. All other revisions involve 
minor clarifications or administrative changes.
    The fitting factor requirement will not impose incremental costs on 
most rotorcraft manufacturers. One small manufacturer of part 27 
rotorcraft indicated additional nonrecurring testing and analysis costs 
of $2,100 to substantiate the 1.33 factor in an initial new type 
certification; most likely, this additional cost will not be incurred 
in subsequent type certification. Although there have been no 
identifiable accidents involving litters attributable to insufficient 
attachment strength, even one minor injury will far exceed the 
relatively low costs. Codification of the 1.33 fitting factor, which is 
inherent in most current designs, will ensure that all future designs 
include this standard, increasing the minimum level of safety.
    There will be no incremental costs or benefits associated with 
removal of the phrase ``unless a rollover is shown to be extremely 
remote'' in Secs. 27.975(b) and 29.975(a)(7) since rotorcraft currently 
meet the minimum fuel spillage requirements of these sections.
    The autopilot display requirement will not impose any incremental 
costs on rotorcraft manufacturers since new autopilot systems employed 
in rotorcraft are identical to those in airplanes and the mode 
indicator in now integral to such system. Codification of this 
requirement will ensure that all future rotorcraft designs comply with 
this standard.
    Most U.S. and European manufacturers currently use electrical wire 
that meets the burn test requirements for transport category rotorcraft 
since they produce both parts 27 and 29 rotocraft. However, the few 
manufacturers that produce normal category rotorcraft only will likely 
experience additional costs. One manufacturer estimates additional 
nonrecurring testing/design costs at $5,300 per type certification and 
additional wiring costs of $530 per rotorcraft. At an estimated 
production of seven rotorcraft per year, the incremental recurring 
costs will total $3,710 per year for ten years, or $37,100 total 
(nondiscounted 1997 dollars), under one type certification. Another 
manufacturer estimates additional wiring costs of $370 per rotorcraft 
and no additional nonrecurring costs. At an estimated production of 20 
rotorcraft per year, the incremental recurring costs will total $7,400 
per year ten years, or $74,000 total (nondiscounted 1997 dollars), 
under one type certification. Averaging the incremental costs for these 
two manufacturers results in an estimate of approximately $58,200 per 
type certification (135 units produced at approximately $430 per unit).
    Part 27 rotorcraft which will be used in specialized operations may 
require somewhat more expensive wiring to meet the new burn test 
requirements. The second commenter to the notice alluded to earlier (a 
manufacturer of fire-fighting systems) indicates that meeting the new 
standards will result in a 5 percent increase in the selling price of 
its system, or $900 per unit. A manufacturer of agricultural spraying 
systems, however, indicates increased per system costs of only a 
fraction of one percent, equating to $100 per unit. Since both of these 
systems represent the type of add-on electrical system potentially 
affected by the wiring provision, using the average of the two 
estimates, or $500, is appropriate. Assuming 20 of the new production 
rotorcraft (about 15%) will be equipped with the add-on systems, the 
additional incremental costs total $10,000.
    Examination of National Transportation Safety Board accident data 
for the period 1983 through 1995 indicates several rotorcraft accidents 
and incidents in which the electrical system was cited as a cause or 
contribute factor. One accident (in June 1994) was primarily caused by 
an electrical short in the wiring which burned a hole in the main fuel 
line, causing a post-impact fire that destroyed the part 27 helicopter. 
The FAA believes that the revised burn test requirements could have 
prevented this accident. If

[[Page 43284]]

the rule prevents one such accident during the operating lives (25-
years) of rotorcraft produced under one part 27 type certification, the 
rule will be cost-beneficial: Replacement costs of a substantially-
damaged rotorcraft equals $125,000 (this benefit alone will exceed the 
total costs of approximately $70,000); adding cumulative damage from 
two or three minor incidents (say $20,000 to $30,000) and potential 
harmonization cost savings ($50,000, based on estimates from previous 
harmonized rotorcraft rules) increases the benefits to approximately 
$200,000, which is almost three times the costs. If one serious injury 
(valued at over $500,000) is prevented, the benefits of the rule would 
be several times the estimated costs.
    In addition, codification of those requirements complied with 
indirectly (i.e., as a result of complying with other provisions) or 
``voluntarily'' (by virture of competitive pressures) will ensure 
continuation of enhanced safety levels in future rotorcraft designs.
    Based on the findings of no significant incremental costs coupled 
with the benefits of harmonization savings and higher levels of safety, 
the FAA has determined that the rule will be cost-beneficial.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a 
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, 
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, 
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the 
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to 
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies to 
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the 
rationale for their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small 
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and 
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. If the determination is that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the Act.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act provides that 
the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement 
providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning 
should be clear.
    For manufacturers, a small entity is one with 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Only five rotorcraft have 1,500 or fewer employees and 
therefore qualify as small entities. However, three of these are not 
currently producing new type-certificated rotocraft, and another does 
not compete with the larger manufacturers. Consequently, only one 
producer could potentially be impacted by this rule. However the 
annualized increased certification costs for a rotorcraft manufacturer 
(based on the average incremental costs of the wiring requirements as 
reported by the two manufacturers, added to the costs to comply with 
the fitting factor requirements) equals approximately $4,400 per type 
certification, which is not considered significant within the meaning 
of the RFA. Consequently, the FAA certifies that the rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
rotorcraft manufacturers.
    The two manufacturers of specialized component systems described 
earlier are also small entities; notwithstanding, the average $500 
incremental cost can easily be passed on to purchasers given the 
inelastic demand for such specialized rotorcraft systems. There is not 
a substantial number of other rotorcraft systems. There is not a 
substantial number of other rotorcraft parts manufacturers that will be 
impacted by this rule. Consequently, the FAA certifies that the rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small rotorcraft parts manufacturers.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    Consistent with the Administration's belief in the general 
superiority, desirability, and efficacy of free trade, it is the policy 
of the Administrator to remove or diminish, to the extent feasible, 
barriers to international trade, including both barriers affecting the 
export of American goods and services to foreign countries and those 
affecting the import of foreign goods and services into the United 
States.
    In accordance with that policy, the FAA is committed to develop as 
much as possible its aviation standards and practices in harmony with 
its trading partners. Significant cost savings can result from this, 
both to American companies doing business in foreign markets, and 
foreign companies doing business in the United States.
    This rule is a direct action to respond to this policy by 
increasing the harmonization of the U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations 
with the European Joint Aviation Requirements. The result will be a 
positive step toward removing impediments to international trade.

Federalism Implications

    The regulations herein will not have substantial direct effects on 
the states, on the relationship between the national government and the 
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive 
Order 12612, it is determined that this rule will not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 
enacted as Pub. L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal 
agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment 
of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency 
rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal 
government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million 
or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Section 
204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
(or their designees) of State, local, and tribal governments on a 
proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any provision in a Federal 
agency regulation that will impose an enforceable duty upon State, 
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of $100 million 
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Section 203 of the 
Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section 204(a), provides that 
before establishing any regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the agency shall 
have developed a plan that, among other things, provides for notice to 
potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a meaningful 
and timely opportunity to provide input in the development of 
regulatory proposals.
    The FAA determined that this rule does not contain a significant 
intergovernmental or private sector mandate as defined by the Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

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

[[Page 43285]]

The Amendments

    Accordingly, the FAA amends 14 CFR parts 27 and 29 as follows:

PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

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

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

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


Sec. 27.625  Fitting factors.

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


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

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


Sec. 27.975  [Amended]

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


Sec. 27.1329  Automatic pilot system.

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


Sec. 27.1365  Electric cables.

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

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS:TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

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

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

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


Sec. 29.625  Fitting factors.

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


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

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


Sec. 29.923  [Amended]

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


Sec. 29.975  [Amended]

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


Sec. 29.1329  Automatic pilot system.

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


Sec. 29.1351  General.

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


Sec. 29.1359  Electrical system fire and smoke protection.

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 7, 1998.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-21609 Filed 8-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M