[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 18, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45092-45095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21378]



[[Page 45091]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 27



Normal Category Rotorcraft Maximum Weight and Passenger Seat 
Limitation; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 18, 1999 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 45092]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 27

[Docket No. 29247; Amendment No. 27-37]
RIN 2120-AF33


Normal Category Rotorcraft Maximum Weight and Passenger Seat 
Limitation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the airworthiness standards for normal 
category rotorcraft. This rule increases the maximum weight limit from 
6,000 to 7,000 pounds, updates the safety standards, and adds a 
passenger seat limitation of nine. These changes offset the increased 
weight imposed by additional requirements such as recent requirements 
to improve occupant survivability in the event of an accident.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 18, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lance Gant, Rotorcraft Standards 
Staff, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Fort 
Worth, Texas 76193-0110, telephone (817) 222-5114, fax 817-222-5959.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Final Rules

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem 
and suitable communications software 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: 202-215-1661).
    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 the mailing list for future 
Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs) and Final Rules should request 
from ARM-1 a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application 
procedure.

Small Entity Inquiries

    If your organization is a small entity and you 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 
(FAA), 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, 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 inquires to the following Internet address: 9-AWA-
[email protected].

Background

    This final rule is based on NPRM No. 98-4 published in the Federal 
Register on June 25, 1998 (63 FR 34610). That notice proposed to amend 
the airworthiness standards for normal category rotorcraft, 14 CFR part 
27 (part 27), based on ARAC recommendations.
    A previous notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 4221, January 20, 
1995) established the ARAC Gross Weight and Passenger Issues for 
Rotorcraft Working Group (GWWG). The notice tasked the GWWG to 
determine the appropriate course of action for increasing the maximum 
weight and passenger seat limitations for normal category rotorcraft. 
The GWWG included representatives from manufacturers. Aerospace 
Industries Association of America (AIA), the European Association of 
Aerospace Industries (AECMA), the European Joint Aviation Authorities 
(JAA), Transport Canada, and the FAA Rotorcraft Directorate.
    The GWWG submitted recommendations to increase the maximum gross 
weight limitation to 7,000 pounds and to add a passenger seat 
limitation of nine. The changes compensate for the increases in weight 
resulting from additional part 27 requirements and operational and 
design trends. An increase in maximum weight to 7,000 pounds will allow 
the design and production of helicopters to carry nine passengers.
    The GWWG recommended additional requirements to part 27 to support 
a potential increase of passengers if the changes (1) related to safety 
for additional passengers, (2) related to safety for increased weight, 
or (3) resulted in little or no increase in cost of weight.
    The GWWG made the following the following recommendations regarding 
previously certificate rotorcraft: (1) Limit certification to seven 
passengers (regardless of maximum weight), (2) permit an increase in 
passengers only if the applicant revises the certification basis and 
complies with part 27 at this amendment level, and (3) permit an 
applicant to increase the rotorcraft maximum weight above 6,000 pounds 
if the seating capacity remains as certificated on October 18, 1999.
    The GWWG made the preceding recommendations to the ARAC. The ARAC 
recommended that the FAA revise the normal category rotorcraft 
airworthiness standards. The JAA will harmonize the Joint Aviation 
Requirements (JAR) concurrently with this final rule. The FAA evaluated 
the ARAC recommendations, made its proposals in NPRM 98-4, and invited 
comments.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA considered comments from all four commenters. Two 
commenters favored adopting the rule as proposed. Two other commenters 
agreed that rule changes were needed but offered the following 
comments:
    One commenter asked why part 27 did not allow a weight limit of 
12,500 pounds as does part 23. Allowing a weight limit of 12,500 pounds 
is beyond the scope of the current rulemaking. The FAA has not ruled 
out future action to further increase the normal category weight limit. 
However, further increases in weight limit may necessitate additional 
requirements to part 27 to maintain an acceptable level of safety.
    The commenter wanted the rule to require crash resistant fuel 
cells. The FAA agrees that crash resistant fuel cells enhance safety 
and currently requires crash resistant fuel systems for rotorcraft 
certificated to Amendment 27-30 dated October 2, 1994 (59 FR 50386).
    The commenter stated that the sentence ``This must be shown by 
test'' proposed in Sec. 27.805(b) was open to interpretation. The FAA 
disagrees. This language mirrors Sec. 29.805(b) in effect since 
February 25, 1968. To date, there has been no confusion as to its 
interpretation. Advisory material covering this requirement is readily 
available. The words ``This must be shown by test'' mean that emergency 
evacuations must be physically performed during type certification 
testing.
    The commenter stated, ``The inclusion of as many exit routes as 
possible would be nice, but things such as rotor clearance (in the case 
of a top hatch) would need addressing.'' The FAA agrees that a thorough 
evaluation of any crew emergency exit configuration is needed. An 
evaluation of the location of the exits in

[[Page 45093]]

determining compliance with Sec. 27.805, paragraphs (a) and (b), would 
include consideration of possible obstructions that may render an exit 
unusable or hazardous, for example, the proximity of the main rotor in 
the case of a top hatch.
    The commenter further suggested using wording similar to part 23 
for pilot compartment emergency exits in Sec. 27.805. The wording 
proposed by the FAA in Sec. 27.805, paragraphs (a) and (b) is similar 
to the wording in Sec. 23.805, paragraphs (a) and (b). The remainder of 
proposed Sec. 27.805 is the same as part 23 and only diverges to 
address differences in aircraft category. Therefore, Sec. 27.805 is 
adopted as proposed.
    Another commenter suggested adding the word ``on'' after ``of this 
part in effect'' in Sec. 27.2(b)(1) and deleting the word 
``previously'' in Sec. 27.2(b)(2)(i). The FAA agrees and has 
incorporated the nonsubstantive changes.

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 no material 
differences in these amendments and the 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. 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 final rule: (1) generates benefits that 
justify its costs and is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as 
defined in Executive Order 12866 or as defined in DOT's Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures; (2) does not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities; (3) has minimal 
effects on international trade; and (4) does not contain a significant 
intergovernmental or private sector mandate. These analyses, available 
in the docket, are summarized as follows.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

    The final rule adds passenger safety related requirements 
commensurate with allowing some rotorcraft to increase passenger 
capacity. With one exception, no part 29 rotorcraft currently being 
manufactured has a maximum gross weight of fewer than 7,000 pounds. As 
the cost per pound per mile decreases as the load approaches a 
rotorcraft's maximum carrying capacity, the absence of part 29 
rotorcraft in the 6,000 pound to 7,000 pound range indicates that this 
gap will be filled more efficiently by rotorcraft certificated under 
part 27. This final rule permits part 27 rotorcraft to fill this gap 
and to provide cost savings to some manufacturers and operators. It 
also eliminates an applicant's need to apply for an exemption to the 
maximum weight requirement for a future part 27 type certificate and 
thereby saves between $10,000 and $18,000 in paperwork costs per 
eliminated exemption application. In addition, it eliminates the FAA's 
time and resources to review and to process the exemption application. 
Thus, the FAA concludes that this final rule imposes no or negligible 
compliance costs and will generate some cost savings.
    Safety benefits will arise as manufacturers develop new, heavier 
part 27 rotorcraft (that will be certificated based on the most recent 
part 27 standards) to replace some older part 27 certificated models. 
The increased weight also benefits some part 27 Emergency Medical 
Services (EMS) rotorcraft that now must limit fuel loads and/or their 
effective ranges in order to carry all of the necessary medical 
equipment while remaining under the 6,000-pound maximum weight. 
Finally, the increased allowable payload weight may permit the 
transport of more than one victim, an important consideration for more 
rapid transportation when there are multiple victims and only one 
available EMS rotorcraft.

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 finds that it will, the 
agency must prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) as 
described in the Act.
    The FAA conducted the required review of this revised rule and 
determined that it does not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The revised rule is expected to 
produce annualized incremental cost savings of $10,000 to $18,000 per 
applicant. While this would be beneficial to a rotorcraft manufacturer, 
it does not affect either the competitiveness or solvency of any small 
business. Accordingly, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 
U.S.C. 605(b), the FAA certifies that this 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, 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 final rule is harmonized with the JAR and will thereby reduce 
differences between U.S., European, and Canadian

[[Page 45094]]

airworthiness standards and will reduce barriers to trade.

Federalism Implications

    The regulations herein would 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 would not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of the 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 by 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 rule will not contain a significant 
intergovernmental or private sector mandate as defined by the Act.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1D defines 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.

Energy Impact

    The energy impact of the rulemaking action has been assessed in 
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and 
Public Law 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 27

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

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends part 27 of Chapter 1, 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. Revise Sec. 27.1(a) to read as follows:


Sec. 27.1  Applicability.

    (a) This part prescribes airworthiness standards for the issue of 
type certificates, and changes to those certificates, for normal 
category rotorcraft with maximum weights of 7,000 pounds or less and 
nine or less passenger seats.
* * * * *
    3. Amend Sec. 27.2 by redesignating the introductory text and 
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) introductory text, (d)(1), and (d)(2) as 
paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4) 
introductory text, and (a)(4)(i) and (a)(4)(ii) respectively and adding 
a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec. 27.2  Special retroactive requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) For rotorcraft with a certification basis established prior to 
October 18, 1999--
    (1) The maximum passenger seat capacity may be increased to eight 
or nine provided the applicant shows compliance with all the 
airworthiness requirements of this part in effect on October 18, 1999.
    (2) The maximum weight may be increased to greater than 6,000 
pounds provided--
    (i) The number of passenger seats is not increased above the 
maximum number certificated on October 18, 1999, or
    (ii) The applicant shows compliance with all of the airworthiness 
requirements of this part in effect on October 18, 1999.
    4. Amend Sec. 27.610 by revising the section heading and by adding 
paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec. 27.610  Lightning and static electricity protection.

* * * * *
    (d) The electrical bonding and protection against lightning and 
static electricity must--
    (1) Minimize the accumulation of electrostatic charge;
    (2) Minimize the risk of electric shock to crew, passengers, and 
service and maintenance personnel using normal precautions;
    (3) Provide an electrical return path, under both normal and fault 
conditions, on rotorcraft having grounded electrical systems; and
    (4) Reduce to an acceptable level the effects of lightning and 
static electricity on the functioning of essential electrical and 
electronic equipment.
    5. Add Sec. 27.805 to read as follows:


Sec. 27.805  Flight crew emergency exits.

    (a) For rotorcraft with passenger emergency exits that are not 
convenient to the flight crew, there must be flight crew emergency 
exits, on both sides of the rotorcraft or as a top hatch in the flight 
crew area.
    (b) Each flight crew emergency exit must be of sufficient size and 
must be located so as to allow rapid evacuation of the flight crew. 
This must be shown by test.
    (c) Each flight crew emergency exit must not be obstructed by water 
or flotation devices after an emergency landing on water. This must be 
shown by test, demonstration, or analysis.
    6. Revise Sec. 27.807 to read as follows:


Sec. 27.807  Emergency exits.

    (a) Number and Location.
    (1) There must be at least one emergency exit on each side of the 
cabin readily accessible to each passenger. One of these exits must be 
usable in any probable attitude that may result from a crash;
    (2) Doors intended for normal use may also serve as emergency 
exits, provided that they meet the requirements of this section; and
    (3) If emergency flotation devices are installed, there must be an 
emergency exit accessible to each passenger on each side of the cabin 
that is shown by test, demonstration, or analysis to;
    (i) Be above the waterline; and

[[Page 45095]]

    (ii) Open without interference from flotation devices, whether 
stowed or deployed.
    (b) Type and operation. Each emergency exit prescribed by paragraph 
(a) of this section must--
    (1) Consist of a movable window or panel, or additional external 
door, providing an unobstructed opening that will admit a 19-by 26-inch 
ellipse;
    (2) Have simple and obvious methods of opening, from the inside and 
from the outside, which do not require exceptional effort;
    (3) Be arranged and marked so as to be readily located and opened 
even in darkness; and
    (4) Be reasonably protected from jamming by fuselage deformation.
    (c) Tests. The proper functioning of each emergency exit must be 
shown by test.
    (d) Ditching emergency exits for passengers. If certification with 
ditching provisions is requested, the markings required by paragraph 
(b)(3) of this section must be designed to remain visible if the 
rotorcraft is capsized and the cabin is submerged.


Sec. 27.853  [Amended]

    7. Amend Sec. 27.853 in paragraph (a) by removing the word 
``flash'' and inserting the word ``flame'' in its place and by removing 
and reserving paragraph (b).
    8. Section 27.1027 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (a) 
through (d) as paragraphs (b) through (e); in redesignated paragraph 
(c)(2), by removing ``(b)(3)'' and adding ``(c)(3)'' in its place; in 
redesignated paragraph (d) by removing ``(b)'' each place it appears 
and adding ``(c); and by adding a new paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec. 27.1027  Transmissions and gearboxes: General.

    (a) The lubrication system for components of the rotor drive system 
that require continuous lubrication must be sufficiently independent of 
the lubrication systems of the engine(s) to ensure lubrication during 
autorotation.
* * * * *
    9. In Sec. 27.1185, a new paragraph (d) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 27.1185  Flammable fluids.

* * * * *
    (d) Absorbent materials close to flammable fluid system components 
that might leak must be covered or treated to prevent the absorption of 
hazardous quantities of fluids.
    10. Revise Sec. 27.1187 to read as follows:


Sec. 27.1187  Ventilation and drainage.

    Each compartment containing any part of the powerplant installation 
must have provision for ventilation and drainage of flammable fluids. 
The drainage means must be--
    (a) Effective under conditions expected to prevail when drainage is 
needed, and
    (b) Arranged so that no discharged fluid will cause an additional 
fire hazard.
    11. In Sec. 27.1305, add a new paragraph (v) to read as follows:


Sec. 27.1305  Powrplant instruments.

* * * * *
    (v) Warning or caution devices to signal to the flight crew when 
ferromagnetic particles are detected by the chip detector required by 
Sec. 27.1337(e).
    12. Revise Sec. 27.1337(e) to read as follows:


Sec. 27.1337  Powerplant instruments.

* * * * *
    (e) Rotor drive system transmissions and gearboxes utilizing 
ferromagnetic materials must be equipped with chip detectors designed 
to indicate the presence of ferromagnetic particles resulting from 
damage or excessive wear. Chip detectors must--
    (1) Be designed to provide a signal to the device required by 
Sec. 27.1305(v) and be provided with a means to allow crewmembers to 
check, in flight, the function of each detector electrical circuit and 
signal.
    (2) [Reserved]

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 12, 1999.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-21378 Filed 8-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M