[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