[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45130-45132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22591]



[[Page 45129]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Parts 27 and 29



Harmonization of Critical Parts Rotorcraft Regulations; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 45130]]


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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

[Docket No. 29311; Notice No. 98-10]
RIN 2120-AG60


Harmonization of Critical Parts Rotorcraft Regulations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes changes to the type certification 
requirements for both normal and transport category rotorcraft. The 
changes would amend the airworthiness standards to define critical 
parts and to require a critical parts plan. The critical parts plan 
would establish procedures that would require the control of the 
design, substantiation, manufacture, maintenance, and modification of 
critical parts.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 23, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Office of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules 
Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 29311; Room 915G, 800 Independence Avenue 
SW, Washington, DC 20591. Comments submitted must be marked Docket No. 
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 Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carroll Wright, Rotorcraft 
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Regulations Group, FAA, 
Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone number (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 document 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 document may be changed in light of the comments received.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
submitted in response to this document must include a preaddressed, 
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments 
to Docket No.'' 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: 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's webpage at http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs/aces/aces140.html 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, which describes the application 
procedure.

Background

    The FAA has established an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 
(ARAC). The FAA assigns certain tasks to ARAC. The ARAC tasks working 
groups to make recommendations. The ARAC, in turn, makes 
recommendations to the FAA.
    The ARAC first assigned the critical parts task to the JAR/FAR 27 
and 29 Harmonization Working Group by announcement in the Federal 
Register (57 FR 58846, December 11, 1992). However, during the 
rulemaking process, it was decided that this issue could involve 14 CFR 
parts 21, ``Certification Procedures for Products and Parts''; and 43, 
``Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alteration''; 
and would require the efforts of a separate ARAC working group. 
Consequently, by another document in the Federal Register (60 FR 4219, 
January 20, 1995), the ARAC announced the establishment of the Critical 
Parts Working Group. The FAA tasked the ARAC to recommend to FAA new or 
revised requirements for a critical parts plan that would control the 
design, substantiation, manufacture, maintenance, and modification of 
critical parts. These airworthiness standards have been harmonized and 
will be proposed by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA).
    Specifically, the task is as follows:

    Review Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, parts 27 and 29, 
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 identification of the critical parts 
for consideration under design, production and maintenance, 
according to a critical parts plan to be prepared by the 
manufacturer. Consider adding new Secs. 27.602 and 29.602 to Title 
14.

    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), Transport Canada Aviation, JAA, the FAA Rotorcraft 
Directorate, and other interested parties. 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 that a critical parts section be added to the 
airworthiness standards for both 14 CFR parts 27 and 29 (parts 27 and 
29).
    The FAA has evaluated the ARAC recommendations and proposes the 
changes contained in this document.

General Discussion of the Proposals

    The objective of identifying critical parts is to ensure that 
critical parts are controlled during design, substantiation, 
manufacture, and throughout their service life so that the risk of 
failure in

[[Page 45131]]

service is minimized by ensuring that the critical parts maintain their 
critical characteristics on which certification is based. Although 
manufacturers currently have various methods to control critical parts, 
this proposal would require that the control process be formalized and 
submitted as part of the type certification process. This proposal to 
address critical parts in the regulations would apply to parts 27 and 
29. A critical part would be defined as a part, the failure of which 
could have a catastrophic effect upon the rotorcraft, and for which 
critical characteristics have been identified which must be controlled 
to ensure the required level of integrity. The use of the word 
``could'' in Secs. 27.602(a) and 29.602(a) of the rule means that this 
failure assessment should consider the effect of flight regime (i.e., 
forward flight, hover, etc.). The operational environment need not be 
considered. The term ``catastrophic'' means the inability to conduct an 
autorotation to a safe landing, without exceptional piloting skills, 
assuming a suitable landing surface.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection associated with this proposed rule is 
currently covered under OMB control #2120-0018.

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. 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 under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and 
Department of Transportation's (DOT) policies and procedures (44 FR 
11034, February 26, 1979). In addition, under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Determination, the FAA certifies that this proposal would 
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Furthermore, this proposal will lessen restraints on 
international trade. Finally, the FAA has determined that the proposal 
would not impose a federal mandate on state, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector of $100 million per year. These 
analyses, available in the docket, are summarized below.

Cost/Benefit Analysis

    The FAA estimates that any costs associated with the proposed rule 
would be negligible. Rotorcraft manufacturers already have many 
requirements (e.g., Secs. 21.31, 21.33, 21.50, 21.139, 21.143, 27.1529, 
and 29.1529) to ensure the safety of the design manufacture, 
maintenance, inspection, and overhaul of rotorcraft parts. All 
manufacturers have some procedures in place to identify and control 
``critical parts,'' which are called ``flight safety parts,'' 
``critical parts,'' ``vital parts,'' or ``identifiable parts.'' This 
proposed rule would merely formalize these procedures into a Critical 
Parts Plan.
    The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) has indicated that it will 
amend its Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR's) by adopting the 
requirements in proposed Sec. 27.602 and 29.602 and incorporate the 
elements of the FAA's Advisory Circular (AC). The benefit of the 
proposed rule could result in both improved safety and cost savings 
from formalization and harmonization of procedures by rotorcraft 
manufacturers.

Initial 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 statues, to 
fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the 
businesses, 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 have a 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 (RFA) 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 an RFA is not 
required. The certification must include a statement providing the 
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    This proposed rule formalizes existing requirements and current 
practices and would result in no more than negligible costs to 
rotorcraft manufacturers. Based on this review, the FAA determined that 
it would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. Accordingly, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Federal Aviation Administration certifies 
that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.

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, 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 proposed 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,

[[Page 45132]]

it is determined that this proposal would not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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 
governments, 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 proposed rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental or 
private sector mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

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

The Proposed Amendments

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend 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. Add a new Sec. 27.602 to read as follows:


Sec. 27.602  Critical parts.

    (a) Critical Part--A critical part is a part, the failure of which 
could have a catastrophic effect upon the rotorcraft, and for which 
critical characteristics have been identified which must be controlled 
to ensure the required level of integrity.
    (b) If the type design includes critical parts, a critical parts 
list shall be established. Procedures shall be established to define 
the critical design characteristics, identify processes that affect 
those characteristics, and identify the design change and process 
change controls necessary for showing compliance with the quality 
assurance requirements of part 21 of this chapter.

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

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

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

    4. Add a new Sec. 29.602 to read as follows:


Sec. 29.602  Critical parts.

    (a) Critical Part--A critical part is a part, the failure of which 
could have a catastrophic effect upon the rotorcraft, and for which 
critical characteristics have been identified which must be controlled 
to ensure the required level of integrity.
    (b) If the type design includes critical parts, a critical parts 
list shall be established. Procedures shall be established to define 
the critical design characteristics, identify processes that affect 
those characteristics, and identify the design change and process 
change controls necessary for showing compliance with the quality 
assurance requirements of part 21 of this chapter.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 17, 1998.
Thomas E. McSweeny,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 98-22591 Filed 8-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P