[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 151 (Friday, August 6, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43016-43021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20294]



[[Page 43015]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Parts 27 and 29



Rotorcraft Load Combination Safety Requirements; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 151 / Friday, August 6, 1999 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 43016]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

[Docket No. 29277; Amendment No. 27-36 and 29-43]
RIN 2120-AG59


Rotorcraft Load Combination Safety Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the airworthiness standards to provide 
improved safety standards for rotorcraft load combination (RLC) 
certification. Several accidents occurred in the past 15 years 
involving the carriage of humans external to the rotorcraft. These 
amendments provide an increased level of safety in the carriage of 
humans. Also, significant changes in equipment employed in external 
load operations have occurred. This document addresses those advances 
in technology and is harmonized to international standards.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 5, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Mathias, Rotorcraft Directorate, 
Aircraft Certification Service, Regulations Group, FAA, Fort Worth, 
Texas 76193-0111, telephone (817) 222-5123, fax 817-222-5959.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Final Rules

    Using a modern 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), or the Government Printing Office's (GPO) electronic 
bulletin board service (telephone: 202-512-1661).
    Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/
avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the GPO's web page at http://www.access/
gpo.gov/nara for access to recently published rulemaking documents.
    Any person may obtain a copy of this final rule 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 amendment number or docket number of 
this final rule.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future 
Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM's) and final rules should request 
from ARM-1 a copy of Advisory Circular (AC) No. 11-2A, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the 
application procedures.

Small Entity Inquiries

    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 under ``Rulemaking (ARM)'' at http://
www.faa.gov and may send electronic inquiries to the following Internet 
address: [email protected].

Background

    On November 27, 1991, following an announcement in the Federal 
Register (56 FR 63546, December 4, 1991), the ARAC charged the External 
Load Working Group to recommend new or revised airworthiness standards 
for Class D rotorcraft external loads. The Working Group assigned to 
this task included technical specialists knowledgeable in all areas of 
external load design and operational requirements. This broad 
participation is consistent with FAA policy to involve all known 
interested parties early in the rulemaking process.
    The working group researched a wide range of data developed by the 
FAA, the military, and other nations' airworthiness authorities. Copies 
of the research documents are included in the docket.
    Although rotorcraft external load operations are routinely 
conducted in a safe manner, several preventable accidents and incidents 
have occurred during the preceding 15 years. For example, several 
preventable inadvertent releases of humans carried external to the 
rotorcraft have occurred. Also, significant changes in the equipment 
employed in external load operations have occurred such as new rigging 
devices. Rotorcraft are now more diverse in design, more maneuverable, 
and more powerful.
    A study of the issues prompted the Working Group to recommend 
updated requirements for modern external load equipment and operational 
practices. The working group proposed requirements to (1) decrease the 
potential for future accidents and incidents; (2) provide that external 
cargo load carrying devices, their release mechanisms, their load 
carrying systems, and their flight performance reflect modern 
operational needs; (3) provide separate and increased levels of safety 
for nonhuman external cargo (NHEC) and human external cargo (HEC) 
RLC's; and (4) provide updated standards that harmonize with the Joint 
Airworthiness Regulations (JAR).
    The FAA evaluated the ARAC recommendations and proposed external 
load standards for rotorcraft certificated under 14 CFR parts 27 and 29 
in NPRM 98-6 published on July 13, 1998 (63 FR 37745). The FAA received 
comments from four commenters. All commenters were generally in favor 
of the proposals but offered the following comments:

Discussion of Comments

14 CFR 27.865(b) and 29.865(b)

    A commenter recommended that Secs. 27.865(b), 29.865(b), 
27.865(b)(3)(ii), and 29.865(b)(3)(ii) be expanded to better define the 
lightning requirements for external loads. The commenter further 
recommended that operational limitations be required, particularly when 
environmental forecasts involve lightning. The FAA believes that the 
commenter's concerns are fully and adequately addressed by the current 
certification regulations and these proposals. The level of protection 
from lightning provided by the current certification regulations, 
Secs. 27.610 and 29.610, and proposals Secs. 27.865(b)(3)(ii) and 
29.610(b)(3)(ii), clearly defines a reasonable level of safety for the 
entire RLC from random lightning strikes during operations. Any 
specific operational restriction for a given RLC that clearly relates 
to potential lightning strikes will become a flight manual limitation 
under current Secs. 27.1583, 29.1583, and 133.45.
    Another commenter states that the wording in proposed 
Secs. 27.865(b)(3)(i) and 29.865(b)(3)(i) implies that the quick 
release system (QRS) must only be capable of releasing the rated load 
at 1G. The commenter recommended an improvement to the wording to 
require that the QRS be certified to the full limit load capability. 
The FAA intends that the QRS must function up to the applicable limit 
load defined by the vertical limit load factors and their application 
proposed in Secs. 27.865(a) and 29.865(a). The proposal in 
Secs. 27.865(b)(3)(i) and 29.865(b)(3)(i) is identical to current 
Secs. 27.865(b)(3) and 29.865(b)(3). The wording is commonly understood 
and is defined in current advisory material as the maximum external 
limit load. However, the FAA agrees that the wording could be

[[Page 43017]]

improved and will insert the word ``limit'' in Secs. 27.865(b0(3)(i) 
and 29.865(b)(3)(i).

14 CFR 27.865(c) and 29.865(c)

    A commenter stated that Sec. 29.865(c)(5) would require special 
procedures and abnormal piloting techniques and should be removed. The 
FAA disagrees. Special procedures are not required for any external 
load operation involving human external cargo. The only procedures 
necessary for external load operations (current or proposed) are those 
now required under current regulations such as Secs. 29.1585 and 
133.45. No abnormal piloting techniques are intended or foreseen.
    A commenter stated that the requirement for performance information 
in the proposed Sec. 29.865(c)(6) would be better placed in 
Sec. 29.1587, Performance information. The FAA disagrees. Placing the 
performance criteria as proposed by the commenter was considered during 
formulation of the proposals and rejected. Specific external loads 
performance criteria is most readily available and useful in 
Secs. 27.865(c)(6) and 29.865(c)(6). The FAA considers the proposed 
placement best for clarity, efficiency, and commonality with 14 CFR 
part 133 (part 133).
    Two commenters recommended creating a new Sec. 27.865(c)(6). The 
first commenter noted that part 27 has recently been amended (Amendment 
27-33) to add a Category A performance provision and recommended that 
Sec. 27.865(c)(6) be added to part 27. The second commenter recommended 
revising Sec. 29.865(c)(6) to include multi-engine rotorcraft having 
Category A engine isolation design features and adding an identical 
Sec. 27.865(c)(6) requirement. The second commenter also recommended 
that Sec. 133.45(e)(1) be revised to include Class D operations with 
multi-engine part 27 rotorcraft having Category A engine isolation 
design features. The FAA agrees in principle that a multi-engine part 
27 Category A rotorcraft could provide an adequate level of performance 
that would permit a safe Class D operation; however, changing 
Sec. 133.45(e)(1) to permit this is beyond the scope of the proposals. 
The FAA will consider these changes for future rulemaking.

14 CFR 27.865(d) and 29.865(d)

    One commenter was concerned that the proposed wording of 
Secs. 27.865(d) and 29.865(d) would mandate flight testing of each 
critical configuration and airspeed for each proposed external load. 
The FAA did not intend such a requirement. When deemed sufficient, 
analysis alone or analysis supported by bench tests may be used for a 
given critical configuration and airspeed without the necessity for 
flight tests.

General Comments

    A commenter stated that a number of the proposed requirements could 
benefit from an indication of what an ``acceptable means of 
compliance'' would be. The commenter recommended that AC 25.1309-1A be 
revised to include these elements. The FAA disagrees. Advisory Circular 
(AC) 25.1309-1A contains advisory material for part 25 airplanes. The 
AC's for parts 27 and 29 contain an acceptable means of compliance for 
rotorcraft.
    The FAA adopts the proposals as proposed in NPRM 98-6 except for 
adding the word ``limit'' to Secs. 27.865(b)(3(i) and 29.865(b)(3)(i) 
as previously discussed.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

International Compatibility

    The FAA has reviewed corresponding International Civil Aviation 
Organization international standards and recommended practices and JAA 
regulations, where they exist, and has identified or discussed 
similarities and differences in these amendments and foreign 
regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    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. 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, which are 
summarized below (and available in the docket), the FAA has determined 
that this final rule will generate benefits exceeding its costs and is 
not ``a significant regulatory action'' as defined in Executive Order 
12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures. In addition, this final rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, will not constitute a 
barrier to international trade, and will not result in the expenditure 
by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100 million or more annually.
    The FAA invited the public to provide comments (and related data) 
on the assumptions made in the regulatory evaluation for the NPRM. No 
comments were received on the preliminary regulatory evaluation.

Costs and Benefits

Costs
    The costs of the rule, which will be borne by manufacturers and 
operators, are evaluated for the time period extending from its 
implementation date through the operating lives of 75 rotorcraft 
assumed to be produced under 4 new type certificates (involving 15-year 
production runs of 5 rotorcraft per year total under all 4 new type 
certificates) and placed into part 133 service. Over the course of this 
evaluation period, incremental costs will total approximately $679,000 
(1998 dollars) or $449,000 discounted to present value (using an 
interest rate of 7 percent and letting ``present'' be the date of 
initial type certification application). Of the $679,000 total cost, 
$447,000 is attributable to incremental design, analysis, test, and 
other certification costs, $30,000 to incremental production costs (75 
rotorcraft at $400 each), and $202,500 to incremental weight penalty 
fuel costs ($180 per year per rotorcraft over 15-year operating lives 
of 75 rotorcraft). On a per-rotorcraft basis, costs will average 
approximately $9,000 or $6,000 discounted. These incremental costs will 
be offset to some extent by potential cost savings associated with 
harmonizing these airworthiness standards with the JAA, streamlining 
certification approvals for part 133 operators, and relaxing some of 
the requirements for parts 27 and 29 manufacturers (see Benefits 
section, below).
Benefits
    To estimate the safety benefits of the rule, the FAA reviewed 
records of accidents involving part 133 operators that occurred between 
mid-1983 and

[[Page 43018]]

1998 that could have been prevented or the losses reduced if the 
changes in the rule had been in effect. During this 15-year period, 
there were 22 such accidents involving fatal and/or non-fatal injuries 
or damage to equipment or both. Ten of the accidents resulted in harm 
to persons (either inside or outside of the rotorcraft), totaling nine 
fatalities and two serious injuries. Twenty of the 22 accidents 
involved either substantial damage (8) or destruction of the rotorcraft 
(12).
    To provide a basis for comparing the safety benefits and costs of 
rulemaking actions, the FAA currently uses a minimum statistical value 
of $2.7 million for fatality avoided and $521,800 for a serious injury 
avoided. Applying these standards to the casualty losses summarized 
above and making allowances for the costs of rotorcraft damage, the 
total cost of the 22 accidents was approximately $31.1 million.
    The FAA estimates that the final rule could prevent at least 50 
percent of the type of accidents summarized above. Applying it 
retrospectively yields dollar benefits of approximately $15.5 million 
(One-half of $31.1 million). Over the 15-year accident evaluation 
period, the part 133 fleet averaged approximately 300 active 
rotorcraft. Therefore, the benefits averaged approximately $3,400 per 
year per rotorcraft ($15.5 million/15years/300 operating part 133 
rotorcraft per year). Applying this per-rotorcraft safety benefit to 
the cumulative number of complying rotorcraft results in total safety 
benefits of $3.8 million (or $1.1 million discounted to present value). 
On a per-rotorcraft basis, these benefits average approximately $51,000 
or $14,300 discounted to the present.
    In addition to improving safety, the final rule provides some cost-
relief in certain respects. New production rotorcraft will be delivered 
with standardized procedures for external load operations, and these 
procedures could result in a small savings to part 133 operators. 
Further, changes to the preceding regulations that relate to the 
primary and backup quick-release devices will reduce production costs 
for parts 27 and 29 rotorcraft manufacturers. The changes will also 
increase harmonization and commonality between U.S. and European 
airworthiness standards. Harmonization will eliminate unnecessary 
differences in airworthiness requirements, thus reducing manufacturers' 
certification costs.

Comparison of Costs and Benefits

    The rule will generate benefits in the form of increased safety and 
cost relief (see preceding paragraph--the potential production cost 
relief has not been included in the cost/benefit calculation). On a 
per-rotorcraft basis, the life-cycle safety benefits will average 
approximately $14,300 (discounted) and the costs will average 
approximately $6,000 (discounted), yielding a benefit-to-cost ratio of 
2.4 to 1. On this basis alone, the rule is cost-beneficial; additional 
quantified efficiency and harmonization benefits will increase this 
ratio.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 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 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.
    The entities that will be affected by this rule consist of 
rotorcraft manufacturers (included in Standard Industrial 
Classification (SIC) 3721, Aircraft and Aircraft Parts Manufacturers) 
and external load operators (SIC 4512, 3413, 4522). Manufacturers will 
incur additional development, certification, and production costs. In 
addition to indirectly incurring all or part of these costs in the form 
of higher rotorcraft acquisition costs, operators will incur increased 
fuel costs resulting from weight penalties. Although the certification 
costs (non-recurring) will be either fully absorbed by the 
manufacturer(s), passed on in-total to operator(s) (purchasers), or 
more likely, absorbed in some proportion by both, the FAA in this 
analysis adopts a conservative approach and allocates total 
certification costs to each category in assessing significant economic 
impact. Incremental per-unit production costs, however, are assumed to 
be fully passed on to purchasers (operators.)
    For manufacturers, a small entity is one with 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Only 5 rotorcraft manufacturers have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and therefore qualify as small entities. However, three of 
these are not currently producing new type-certificated rotorcraft, and 
a fourth does not produce rotorcraft used for external loads. The fifth 
small manufacturer produces specialized smaller rotorcraft, a minority 
of which are configured for external load operations. This producer 
does not compete with the larger manufacturers. The annualized 
certification costs imposed by the rule are estimated to be $10,800 per 
manufacturer for each certification and are not considered significant 
within the meaning of the RFA.
    There are numerous external load operators. The FAA has not 
determined how many of these are small operators and if a substantial 
number will potentially be impacted by the rule. However, most external 
load operations involve specialized activities such as logging, 
offshore oil drilling, or emergency rescue operations. The demand for 
such operations is highly price-inelastic; the operators can readily 
pass on the incremental costs to their customers. Notwithstanding, the 
maximum annualized cost per rotorcraft will most likely not be greater 
than $618 (discounted) (includes manufacturers' certification and 
production costs passed on to the purchaser and increased fuel costs 
but excludes potential offsetting cost-savings). This amount probably 
equates to less than the cost of 4 hours' operating time (representing 
a de minimus portion of annual revenues) and is not considered 
significant within the meaning of the Act. In addition, no small 
manufacturer or small operator will bear a disproportionate cost burden 
nor have a greater likelihood of failing in business compared to larger 
entities.
    Based on the findings delineated above and consistent with the 
objectives and requirements of the RFA as amended, the FAA certifies 
that this final rule will not have a significant

[[Page 43019]]

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, 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 United States' companies doing business in foreign markets, and 
foreign companies doing business in the United States. This final rule 
is a direct action to respond to this policy by increasing the 
harmonization of the U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations with the 
European JAR. The result will be a positive step toward removing 
impediments to international trade.

Federalism Implications

    The regulations herein will not have a substantial direct effect 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 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 FAA determines that this final rule does not contain a 
significant intergovernmental or private sector mandate as defined by 
the Act.

Energy Impact

    The energy impact of the rulemaking document has been assessed in 
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and 
Public L. 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362). It has been determined 
that it is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of the 
EPCA.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically 
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. In 
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this 
rulemaking action qualifies for a categorical exclusion.

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 Amendments

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends parts 27 and 29 of Chapter I, Title 14, of the 
Code of Federal Regulations 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. Amend Sec. 27.25 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 27.25  Weight limits.

* * * * *
    (c) Total weight with jettisonable external load.  A total weight 
for the rotorcraft with a jettisonable external load attached that is 
greater than the maximum weight established under paragraph (a) of this 
section may be established for any rotorcraft-load combination if--
    (1) The rotorcraft-load combination does not include human external 
cargo,
    (2) Structural component approval for external load operations 
under either Sec. 27.865 or under equivalent operational standards is 
obtained,
    (3) The portion of the total weight that is greater than the 
maximum weight established under paragraph (a) of this section is made 
up only of the weight of all or part of the jettisonable external load,
    (4) Structural components of the rotorcraft are shown to comply 
with the applicable structural requirements of this part under the 
increased loads and stresses caused by the weight increase over that 
established under paragraph (a) of this section, and
    (5) Operation of the rotorcraft at a total weight greater than the 
maximum certificated weight established under paragraph (a) of this 
section is limited by appropriate operating limitations under 
Sec. 27.865(a) and (d) of this part.
    3. The undesignated center heading preceding Sec. 27.865 is revised 
as set forth below; and in Sec. 27.865 the section heading, paragraph 
(a) introductory text and paragraph (b) are revised; paragraphs (c) and 
(d) are redesignated as (e) and (f) and revised; and new paragraphs (c) 
and (d) are added to read as follows:

External Loads


Sec. 27.865  External loads.

    (a) It must be shown by analysis, test, or both, that the 
rotorcraft external load attaching means for rotorcraft-load 
combinations to be used for nonhuman external cargo applications can 
withstand a limit static load equal to 2.5, or some lower load factor 
approved under Secs. 27.337 through 27.341, multiplied by the maximum 
external load for which authorization is requested. It must be shown by 
analysis, test, or both that the rotorcraft external load attaching 
means and corresponding personnel carrying device system for 
rotorcraft-load combinations to be used for human external cargo 
applications can withstand a limit static load equal to 3.5 or some 
lower load factor, not less than 2.5, approved under Secs. 27.337 
through 27.341, multiplied by the maximum external load for which

[[Page 43020]]

authorization is requested. The load for any rotorcraft-load 
combination class, for any external cargo type, must be applied in the 
vertical direction. For jettisonable external loads of any applicable 
external cargo type, the load must also be applied in any direction 
making the maximum angle with the vertical that can be achieved in 
service but not less than 30 deg.. However, the 30 deg. angle may be 
reduced to a lesser angle if--
* * * * *
    (b) The external load attaching means, for jettisonable rotorcraft-
load combinations, must include a quick-release system to enable the 
pilot to release the external load quickly during flight. The quick-
release system must consist of a primary quick release subsystem and a 
backup quick release subsystem that are isolated from one another. The 
quick-release system, and the means by which it is controlled, must 
comply with the following:
    (1) A control for the primary quick release subsystem must be 
installed either on one of the pilot's primary controls or in an 
equivalently accessible location and must be designed and located so 
that it may be operated by either the pilot or a crewmember without 
hazardously limiting the ability to control the rotorcraft during an 
emergency situation.
    (2) A control for the backup quick release subsystem, readily 
accessible to either the pilot or another crewmember, must be provided.
    (3) Both the primary and backup quick release subsystems must--
    (i) Be reliable, durable, and function properly with all external 
loads up to and including the maximum external limit load for which 
authorization is requested.
    (ii) Be protected against electromagnetic interference (EMI) from 
external and internal sources and against lightning to prevent 
inadvertent load release.
    (A) The minimum level of protection required for jettisonable 
rotorcraft-load combinations used for nonhuman external cargo is a 
radio frequency field strength of 20 volts per meter.
    (B) The minimum level of protection required for jettisonable 
rotorcraft-load combinations used for human external cargo is a radio 
frequency field strength of 200 volts per meter.
    (iii) Be protected against any failure that could be induced by a 
failure mode of any other electrical or mechanical rotorcraft system.
    (c) For rotorcraft-load combinations to be used for human external 
cargo applications, the rotorcraft must--
    (1) For jettisonable external loads, have a quick-release system 
that meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section and that--
    (i) Provides a dual actuation device for the primary quick release 
subsystem, and
    (ii) Provides a separate dual actuation device for the backup quick 
release subsystem;
    (2) Have a reliable, approved personnel carrying device system that 
has the structural capability and personnel safety features essential 
for external occupant safety;
    (3) Have placards and markings at all appropriate locations that 
clearly state the essential system operating instructions and, for the 
personnel carrying device system, the ingress and egress instructions;
    (4) Have equipment to allow direct intercommunication among 
required crewmembers and external occupants; and
    (5) Have the appropriate limitations and procedures incorporated in 
the flight manual for conducting human external cargo operations.
    (d) The critically configured jettisonable external loads must be 
shown by a combination of analysis, ground tests, and flight tests to 
be both transportable and releasable throughout the approved 
operational envelope without hazard to the rotorcraft during normal 
flight conditions. In addition, these external loads must be shown to 
be releasable without hazard to the rotorcraft during emergency flight 
conditions.
    (e) A placard or marking must be installed next to the external-
load attaching means clearly stating any operational limitations and 
the maximum authorized external load as demonstrated under Sec. 27.25 
and this section.
    (f) The fatigue evaluation of Sec. 27.571 of this part does not 
apply to rotorcraft-load combinations to be used for nonhuman external 
cargo except for the failure of critical structural elements that would 
result in a hazard to the rotorcraft. For rotorcraft-load combinations 
to be used for human external cargo, the fatigue evaluation of 
Sec. 27.571 of this part applies to the entire quick release and 
personnel carrying device structural systems and their attachments.

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

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

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

    5. Amend Sec. 29.25 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 29.25  Weight limits.

* * * * *
    (c) Total weight with jettisonable external load. A total weight 
for the rotorcraft with a jettisonable external load attached that is 
greater than the maximum weight established under paragraph (a) of this 
section may be established for any rotorcraft-load combination if--
    (1) The rotorcraft-load combination does not include human external 
cargo,
    (2) Structural component approval for external load operations 
under either Sec. 29.865 or under equivalent operational standards is 
obtained,
    (3) The portion of the total weight that is greater than the 
maximum weight established under paragraph (a) of this section is made 
up only of the weight of all or part of the jettisonable external load,
    (4) Structural components of the rotorcraft are shown to comply 
with the applicable structural requirements of this part under the 
increased loads and stresses caused by the weight increase over that 
established under paragraph (a) of this section, and
    (5) Operation of the rotorcraft at a total weight greater than the 
maximum certificated weight established under paragraph (a) of this 
section is limited by appropriate operating limitations under 
Sec. 29.865 (a) and (d) of this part.
    6. The undesignated center heading preceding Sec. 29.865 is revised 
as set forth below; and in Sec. 29.865 the section heading, paragraph 
(a) introductory text and paragraph (b) are revised; paragraphs (c) and 
(d) are redesignated as (e) and (f) and revised; and new paragraphs (c) 
and (d) are added to read as follows:

External Loads


Sec. 29.865  External loads.

    (a) It must be shown by analysis, test, or both, that the 
rotorcraft external load attaching means for rotorcraft-load 
combinations to be used for nonhuman external cargo applications can 
withstand a limit static load equal to 2.5, or some lower load factor 
approved under Secs. 29.337 through 29.341, multiplied by the maximum 
external load for which authorization is requested. It must be shown by 
analysis, test, or both that the rotorcraft external load attaching 
means and corresponding personnel carrying device system for 
rotorcraft-load combinations to be used for human external cargo 
applications can withstand a limit static load equal to 3.5 or some 
lower load factor, not less than 2.5, approved under Secs. 29.337

[[Page 43021]]

through 29.341, multiplied by the maximum external load for which 
authorization is requested. The load for any rotorcraft-load 
combination class, for any external cargo type, must be applied in the 
vertical direction. For jettisonable external loads of any applicable 
external cargo type, the load must also be applied in any direction 
making the maximum angle with the vertical that can be achieved in 
service but not less than 30 deg.. However, the 30 deg. angle may be 
reduced to a lesser angle if--
* * * * *
    (b) The external load attaching means, for jettisonable rotorcraft-
load combinations, must include a quick-release system to enable the 
pilot to release the external load quickly during flight. The quick-
release system must consist of a primary quick release subsystem and a 
backup quick release subsystem that are isolated from one another. The 
quick release system, and the means by which it is controlled, must 
comply with the following:
    (1) A control for the primary quick release subsystem must be 
installed either on one of the pilot's primary controls or in an 
equivalently accessible location and must be designed and located so 
that it may be operated by either the pilot or a crewmember without 
hazardously limiting the ability to control the rotorcraft during an 
emergency situation.
    (2) A control for the backup quick release subsystem, readily 
accessible to either the pilot or another crewmember, must be provided.
    (3) Both the primary and backup quick release subsystems must--
    (i) Be reliable, durable, and function properly with all external 
loads up to and including the maximum external limit load for which 
authorization is requested.
    (ii) Be protected against electromagnetic interference (EMI) from 
external and internal sources and against lightning to prevent 
inadvertent load release.
    (A) The minimum level of protection required for jettisonable 
rotorcraft-load combinations used for nonhuman external cargo is a 
radio frequency field strength of 20 volts per meter.
    (B) The minimum level of protection required for jettisonable 
rotorcraft-load combinations used for human external cargo is a radio 
frequency field strength of 200 volts per meter.
    (iii) Be protected against any failure that could be induced by a 
failure mode of any other electrical or mechanical rotorcraft system.
    (c) For rotorcraft-load combinations to be used for human external 
cargo applications, the rotorcraft must--
    (1) For jettisonable external loads, have a quick-release system 
that meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section and that--
    (i) Provides a dual actuation device for the primary quick release 
subsystem, and
    (ii) Provides a separate dual actuation device for the backup quick 
release subsystem;
    (2) Have a reliable, approved personnel carrying device system that 
has the structural capability and personnel safety features essential 
for external occupant safety;
    (3) Have placards and markings at all appropriate locations that 
clearly state the essential system operating instructions and, for the 
personnel carrying device system, ingress and egress instructions;
    (4) Have equipment to allow direct intercommunication among 
required crewmembers and external occupants;
    (5) Have the appropriate limitations and procedures incorporated in 
the flight manual for conducting human external cargo operations; and
    (6) For human external cargo applications requiring use of Category 
A rotorcraft, have one-engine-inoperative hover performance data and 
procedures in the flight manual for the weights, altitudes, and 
temperatures for which external load approval is requested.
    (d) The critically configured jettisonable external loads must be 
shown by a combination of analysis, ground tests, and flight tests to 
be both transportable and releasable throughout the approved 
operational envelope without hazard to the rotorcraft during normal 
flight conditions. In addition, these external loads--must be shown to 
be releasable without hazard to the rotorcraft during emergency flight 
conditions.
    (e) A placard or marking must be installed next to the external-
load attaching means clearly stating any operational limitations and 
the maximum authorized external load as demonstrated under Sec. 29.25 
and this section.
    (f) The fatigue evaluation of Sec. 29.571 of this part does not 
apply to rotorcraft-load combinations to be used for nonhuman external 
cargo except for the failure of critical structural elements that would 
result in a hazard to the rotorcraft. For rotorcraft-load combinations 
to be used for human external cargo, the fatigue evaluation of 
Sec. 29.571 of this part applies to the entire quick release and 
personnel carrying device structural systems and their attachments.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 3, 1999.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-20294 Filed 8-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M