[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 24, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46230-46232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21647]



[[Page 46229]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Parts 27 and 29



Harmonization of Critical Parts Rotorcraft Regulations; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 24, 1999 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 46230]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

[Docket No. 29311; Amdt. Nos. 27-38 and 29-45]
RIN 2120-AG60


Harmonization of Critical Parts Rotorcraft Regulations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the airworthiness standards for both 
normal and transport category rotorcraft. This amendment defines 
critical parts. This document also requires a critical parts list with 
procedures to control the design, substantiation, manufacture, 
maintenance, and modification of critical parts. The benefits of the 
rule will be the formalization of the current critical parts procedures 
and the harmonization of the Joint Aviation Authorities and the U.S. 
requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 1999.

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

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) 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 document 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 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 the above office a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, NPRM 
Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

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 under ``Rulemaking 
(ARM)'' 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: [email protected]

Background

    By notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 4219, January 20, 1995), 
the ARAC announced the establishment of the Critical Parts Working 
Group. The FAA tasked ARAC to recommend new or revised requirements for 
a critical parts list to control the design, substantiation, 
manufacture, maintenance, and modification of critical parts. ARAC 
tasked the Critical Parts Working Group. The working group included 
representatives from the major rotorcraft manufacturers (normal and 
transport) and representatives from Aerospace Industries Association of 
America, Inc., Association Europeene des Constructeurs de Material 
Aerospatial, Transport Canada Aviation, Joint Aviation Authorities 
(JAA), the FAA Rotorcraft Directorate, and other interested parties. 
This broad participation is consistent with FAA policy to involve all 
known interested parties early in the rulemaking process.
    The working group presented its findings to the ARAC. The ARAC 
recommended that the FAA add a critical parts section to the 
airworthiness standards, 14 CFR parts 27 and 29 (parts 27 and 29). The 
FAA evaluated the recommendations and made proposals in NPRM No. 98-10 
published in the Federal Register on August 24, 1998 (63 FR 45129). 
These airworthiness standards are harmonized and will be adopted by the 
JAA.
    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 service is minimized by ensuring that the critical parts 
maintain the critical characteristics on while certification is based. 
Manufacturers currently have various methods to control critical parts.
    In Secs. 27.602(a) and 29.602(a), a critical part is 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 
word ``could'' in the definition was intended to mean that this failure 
assessment must consider the effect of flight regime (i.e., forward 
flight, hover, etc.). The operational environment need not be 
considered. The term ``catastrophic'' was intended to mean the 
inability to conduct an autorotation to a safe landing, without 
exceptional piloting skills, assuming a suitable landing surface.
    The FAA requested comments on these proposals. The FAA considered 
comments from the three commenters. The commenters were generally in 
favor of the rule with the following comments:

Discussion of Comments

    One commenter stated that the definition of a critical part is 
needed but should be placed in 14 CFR part 1 (part 1). The FAA 
disagrees because NPRM 98-10 did not propose to amend part 1, and the 
definition is needed to implement the requirements for a critical parts 
list in parts 27 and 29.
    The commenter was concerned about the FAA requiring duplicate 
records. The critical parts list specified in Secs. 27.602(b) and 
29.602(b) will not be a duplicate record but will contain procedures 
for control of the design, substantiation, manufacturing, maintenance, 
and modification of critical parts.
    The same commenter was concerned that proposed Secs. 27.602(b) and 
29.602(b) and 29.602(b) would require a critical parts list for 
existing model helicopters. The commenter suggested adding a date to 
the requirements so that the change would not become retroactive. The 
FAA does not intend a retroactive requirement but does not agree that a 
date is necessary. Each type design change will be evaluated for the 
presence of critical parts, which determines the applicability of 
Secs. 27.602(b) and 29.602(b).
    Another commenter was concerned that the proposal would abate the 
Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) process for critical parts. The FAA 
does not intend to change the PMA process by this requirement. The 
critical parts list will define critical characteristics and contain 
control procedures that will be a part of the type design data.

[[Page 46231]]

    Another commenter agreed with the proposal but stated that the 
requirement should apply to all characteristics and not be limited to 
critical characteristics. The commenter recommended revising 
Secs. 27.602(b) and 29.602(b) and adding paragraphs (c), (d), and (e). 
Following are the commenter's recommended paragraph changes and the 
FAA's response to each recommendation:

    (b) The type design shall minimize critical parts. A critical 
parts list shall be established for the product. Each critical part 
drawing shall identify this ``critical part'' classification of the 
part.

    The FAA does not dictate type design. The manufacturer establishes 
the type design. The FAA's role is to ensure that the type design 
conforms to the regulations. Minimizing critical parts may not 
necessarily ensure safer aircraft.

    (c) A critical part's plan and supporting procedures shall be 
established to assure parts consistently are conforming to all 
engineering requirements for material, process, and dimensions. The 
Plan's target numerical ``escape'' risk of a critical non-
conformance shall be specified.

    The FAA currently requires that all parts conform to all 
engineering requirements for material, process, and dimensions. The 
risk of non-conformance is part of the quality assurance program 
required by 14 CFR part 21 (part 21).

    (d) Records of critical parts production and inspection shall be 
retained for twenty (20) years minimum.

    The FAA's record retention requirements are addressed in the 
quality assurance program required by part 21.

    (e) Existence of the critical parts plan shall not minimize the 
requirement for all products and parts to conform to all technical 
requirements including the quality assurance requirements of part 21 
of this chapter.

    The FAA agrees that the critical parts list does not minimize the 
requirement for all products and parts to conform to technical 
requirements. However, this proposal places emphasis on the critical 
parts. Since the commenter's recommended paragraph changes are 
addressed in the quality assurance program required by part 21, the FAA 
will not implement them in this rule.
    After due consideration of all the comments, the FAA adopts the 
amendments as proposed in NPRM 98-10.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

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 effect of regulatory changes to analyze the economic effect of 
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Office of Management 
and Budget directs agencies to assess the effects of regulatory changes 
on international trade. In conducting these analyses, the FAA has 
determined that this 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 in DOT's Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures; (3) will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities; and (4) will not constitute a 
barrier to international trade. These analyses, available in the 
docket, are summarized below.

Cost/Benefit Analysis

    The FAA estimates that any costs will 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 may be called ``flight 
safety parts,'' ``critical parts,'' ``vital parts,'' or ``identificable 
parts''. This rule will merely formalize these procedures into a 
critical parts list.
    The JAA has indicated that it will amend the Joint Aviation 
Requirements by adopting the requirements in Secs. 27.602 and 29.602. 
The benefits of the rule will be the formalization of the current 
critical parts procedures and the harmonization of the JAA and the U.S. 
requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 was enacted by Congress to 
ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or disproportionately 
burdened by government regulations. 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. Because this rule 
formalizes current practices and will result in no more than negligible 
costs to rotorcraft manufacturers, the FAA certifies that it will not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and 
an RFA is not required.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The rule will not constitute a barrier to international trade, 
including the export of American rotorcraft to foreign countries or the 
import of foreign rotorcraft into the United States. The JAA will 
harmonize their requirements with those in this rule. There will be no 
cost (or cost savings) advantage to persons in either the United States 
or to JAA member countries.

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 Public Law 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

[[Page 46232]]

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.
    This rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental or private 
sector mandate that exceeds $100 million a year.

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.

Energy Impact

    The energy impact of this rule 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 major 
regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Rotorcraft.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends parts 27 and 29 of Title 14, 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. 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 rotocraft, 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 crtical 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 rotocraft, and for which 
critical characterists 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 16, 1999.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-21647 Filed 8-23-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M