82 FR 50583 - Normal and Transport Category Rotorcraft Certification

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 210 (November 1, 2017)

Page Range		50583-50593
FR Document		2017-23360
The FAA proposes to amend the certification standards of normal and transport category helicopters. The proposed changes are necessary to address modern designs currently used in the rotorcraft industry and would reduce the burden on applicants for certification of new rotorcraft designs. The proposed changes would reduce or eliminate the need for certain special conditions currently required to obtain certification of modern rotorcraft. The proposed changes would also incorporate the requirements of equivalent level of safety findings that the FAA has imposed as conditions for approving certain design features.
Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50583-50593]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23360]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

[Docket No.: FAA-2017-0990]
RIN 2120-AK80


Normal and Transport Category Rotorcraft Certification

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend the certification standards of 
normal and transport category helicopters. The proposed changes are 
necessary to address modern designs currently used in the rotorcraft 
industry and would reduce the burden on applicants for certification of 
new rotorcraft designs. The proposed changes would reduce or eliminate 
the need for certain special conditions currently required to obtain 
certification of modern rotorcraft. The proposed changes would also 
incorporate the requirements of equivalent level of safety findings 
that the FAA has imposed as conditions for approving certain design 
features.

DATES: Send comments on or before January 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0990 
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room 
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket 
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments 
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts 
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the 
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system 
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at 
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions 
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this action, 
contact Sandra Shelley, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management 
Group, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 
222-5110; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes 
the authority of the FAA

[[Page 50584]]

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more 
detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Sections 44701 and 44704. Under 
section 44701, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
minimum standards required in the interest of safety for the design and 
performance of aircraft. Under section 44704, the Administrator issues 
type certificates for aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and 
specified appliances when the Administrator finds the product is 
properly designed and manufactured, performs properly, and meets the 
regulations and minimum standards prescribed under section 44701(a). 
This rulemaking is within the scope of these authorities because it 
would promote safety by updating the existing minimum prescribed 
standards used during the type certification process.

I. Overview of Proposed Rule

    The FAA proposes to revise regulations in title 14 Code of Federal 
Regulations (14 CFR) part 27 (Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category 
Rotorcraft) and part 29 (Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category 
Rotorcraft) related to the certification of rotorcraft. The proposed 
changes are necessary due to the extensive application of advancing 
technologies to rotorcraft. Existing airworthiness standards are 
inadequate because they do not address increasing design complexity. To 
address these advances, the FAA currently issues reoccurring special 
conditions, equivalent level of safety findings (ELOS), and means of 
compliance (MOC) issue papers. This proposed rule would address these 
problem areas by updating those standards that cause unnecessary 
burdens in cost and time to both the FAA and the rotorcraft industry. 
Compliance with these proposed regulatory changes would continue to be 
shown by the same testing, analysis, and inspections as in the current 
certification process and there would be a reduced burden through 
clarification of the safety requirements for the installed systems.

II. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    The FAA is proposing to update parts 27 and 29 because the 
regulations were originally published in 1964 and revisions to the 
airworthiness standards have not kept pace with advances in technology 
for rotorcraft. The FAA addresses the changes to technology by issuing 
reoccurring special conditions, ELOS findings, and MOC issue papers. 
Special conditions are prescribed under 14 CFR 21.16 when the FAA finds 
the applicable airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or 
appropriate safety standards because of a novel or unusual design 
feature. The FAA issues ELOS findings under Sec.  21.21(b)(1) where a 
design does not literally comply with the airworthiness standards, but 
compensating factors exist that provide an equivalent level of safety. 
MOC issue papers document compliance methodologies that fall outside 
existing guidance and policies. These three processes are necessary to 
address new design features for which airworthiness standards are 
lacking, literal compliance with a rule cannot be achieved, or 
alternative methods of compliance are proposed. In some cases, 
advancements in technology have rendered the regulations obsolete.
    These special conditions, ELOS findings, and MOC issue papers 
impact FAA resources and applicants' schedules for obtaining FAA 
approval of their products. By updating the affected standards, many 
special conditions, ELOS findings, and MOC issue papers would be 
unnecessary, thus reducing the burden on both the FAA and industry. We 
also propose to update a few of these rules to correct typographical 
errors.
    Sections 27.1329 and 29.1329 do not adequately address the latest 
technology in flight control automation. These standards adequately 
addressed the functionality of autopilots for many years until recently 
with the development of more sophisticated functions, especially in 
normal category helicopters. The rotorcraft autopilot systems of 
previous years controlled only altitude, attitude, and heading. The 
more advanced autopilot systems also control airspeed, vertical speed, 
and hover. The current rule is inconsistent with FAA-accepted industry 
standards and practices. The current rule does not adequately cover the 
growing changes in the marketplace toward increased automation in the 
primary flight controls.
    Sections 27.1335 and 29.1335 were originally written to address a 
particular flight control concept called ``flight director systems;'' 
however, the term itself has long been considered a standard part of a 
modern autopilot covered under Sec. Sec.  27.1329 and 29.1329. In 
addition, the text we propose to remove from Sec. Sec.  27.1335 and 
29.1335 has been added to the proposed Sec. Sec.  27.1329 and 29.1329 
rules. The impact to industry would be minimal since the current 
material associated with these rules in Advisory Circular (AC) 27-1B, 
Certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft, and AC 29-2C, 
Certification of Transport Category Rotorcraft,\1\ already recognizes 
industry standards and practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In appendix B to parts 27 and 29, the reference to Amendment 29-14 
in section VIII needs to be removed. By citing the amendment within the 
rule, appendix B requires updating every time a relevant part 27 or 
part 29 rule is changed.

B. National Transportation Safety Board Recommendations

    As a result of incidents involving lithium-ion batteries installed 
on aircraft, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued 
Safety Recommendations A-14-032 through 036 to the FAA on May 22, 
2014.\2\ The NTSB recommended the FAA develop abuse tests to simulate 
failures observed in the incidents investigated and to address findings 
in recent research (A-14-032), perform these tests on new aircraft for 
certain installations (A-14-033), develop guidance on acceptable 
methods to induce thermal runaway that reliably simulates battery 
failures (A-14-034), review methods of compliance used to certificate 
in-service lithium-ion battery aircraft installations to ensure that 
they adequately protect against adverse effects of a cell thermal 
runaway (A-14-035), and develop policy to establish a panel of 
technical experts to advise on compliance and best practices for safely 
installing new technology (A-14-036). This proposed rule would 
incorporate these NTSB recommendations as they relate to rotorcraft 
into Sec. Sec.  27.1353 and 29.1353.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ http://www.ntsb.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of the Proposal

A. AC 27-1B and AC 29-2C Guidance

    AC 27-1B and AC 29-2C provide information on methods of compliance 
with 14 CFR parts 27 and 29, which contain the airworthiness standards 
for normal and transport category rotorcraft. These ACs include methods 
of compliance in the areas of basic design, ground tests, and flight 
tests. With these proposed rules, the FAA is also proposing related 
changes to these ACs.

B. Powerplant Instruments (Sec. Sec.  27.1305 and 29.1305)

    Sections 27.1305 and 29.1305 prescribe the specific required 
powerplant instruments for rotorcraft.

[[Page 50585]]

The current rules specify separate indicators for many of these 
instruments, including engine manifold pressure and engine revolutions 
per minute (r.p.m.) for reciprocating engines, or gas producer speed, 
gas temperature, and torque for turbine engines.
    Traditionally, pilots determine the powerplant performance 
conditions by monitoring individual gauges: Gas temperature, gas 
producer speed, and torque. Sections 27.1305 and 29.1305 establish the 
required powerplant instruments, and Sec. Sec.  27.1321 and 29.1321 
require that these instruments be easily visible to the pilot. These 
instruments measure the performance output of the engines and they 
collectively allow the pilot to continuously monitor the condition and 
health of the engines.
    Many rotorcraft manufacturers have started to incorporate a 
synthesized power indicator (SPI) that provides a single indicator of 
engine performance. This single value displayed to the pilot is 
generally presented as a percentage of the nearest engine limit. The 
continuously displayed SPI presents the calculated value to the flight 
crew on the primary flight displays along with a caption indicating the 
nearest engine limiting parameter that is being used for the SPI 
displayed calculation. Acceptable designs allow the pilot to monitor 
engine performance and trends. Technologies such as an SPI, which 
combine multiple indicators into one, cannot meet the requirements of 
the current rules. By allowing means other than dedicated indicators, 
the proposed changes would permit designs incorporating an SPI or 
similar concepts. The FAA proposes to revise Sec. Sec.  27.1305(e), 
(k), (n), and (o) and 29.1305(a)(5), (11), and (12) to allow other 
means of powerplant indication for these instruments. Section 
27.1305(k) would continue to require a tachometer to indicate main 
rotor speed, but would also require a separate means to indicate the 
r.p.m. of each engine. The FAA also proposes to modify Sec.  27.1305(o) 
by replacing ``turboshaft'' with ``turbine'' to be consistent with 
similar wording used throughout parts 27 and 29.
    For part 29, the FAA proposes to add Sec.  29.1305(b)(4) to permit 
manipulating the powerplant instruments to simulate one engine 
inoperative (OEI) conditions without damaging the engines. Section 
29.1305 requires unbiased engine instrument indications to remain 
available to assure operation within safe limits. Several helicopter 
designs include, for Category A \3\ training purposes (OEI Training 
Mode), a feature to represent a simulated engine failure by reducing 
power of all engines symmetrically. This simulated OEI condition is 
shown on the engine instruments by biasing the engine power, gas 
temperature, and gas producer and free power turbine tachometers on the 
primary flight display. To avoid confusion, the proposed Sec.  
29.1305(b)(4) would require additional annunciations to differentiate 
the simulated OEI condition from that of an actual engine failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In 14 CFR 1.1, Category A, with respect to transport 
category rotorcraft, means multiengine rotorcraft designed with 
engine and system isolation features specified in Part 29 and 
utilizing scheduled takeoff and landing operations under a critical 
engine failure concept which assures adequate designated surface 
area and adequate performance capability for continued safe flight 
in the event of engine failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to Sec.  29.1305 would permit designs 
incorporating an OEI Training Mode. The FAA is not proposing changes to 
Sec.  27.1305 because 14 CFR part 27 Category A rotorcraft are approved 
under appendix C to part 27, which requires compliance with Sec.  
29.1305.

C. Rotorcraft Equipment, Systems, and Installations (Sec. Sec.  
27.1309, 29.1309, and Appendix C to Part 27)

    Sections 27.1309 and 29.1309 apply generally to all systems on the 
aircraft that do not otherwise have specific language to analyze the 
safety aspects of a system. The proposed changes to Sec.  27.1309 would 
address advances in technology and increases in performance of normal 
category rotorcraft that were not envisioned when this rule was 
originally promulgated. Manufacturers installed complex and highly 
integrated systems in part 27 rotorcraft certificated for instrument 
flight rules (IFR) under appendix B and Category A operations under 
appendix C. At that time, the FAA did not envision complex and highly 
integrated systems would be installed in non-IFR and non-Category A 
normal category rotorcraft because industry was not employing this 
advanced technology or the technology did not exist. The analysis 
methods used to identify and determine the effects of system failures 
required in Sec.  27.1309 are not adequate for today's complex and 
highly integrated systems. The use of this advanced technology resulted 
in an exponential increase in the number of ways rotorcraft systems can 
fail and a decrease in the discernibility of such failures. To ensure 
the reliability of the rotorcraft system is not compromised when 
utilizing complex and highly integrated technology, the FAA is 
proposing a more structured repeatable failure analysis.
    The proposed change would also eliminate the distinction between 
single-engine and multi-engine rotorcraft. Section 27.1309 currently 
requires applicants to assess the effects of failures that may be 
introduced by installed systems and equipment, and distinguishes that 
the methods for assessing these failures may be different between 
single and multi-engine rotorcraft. This distinction was envisioned 
because multi-engine rotorcraft employed complex systems or systems 
with more severe failure effects. This distinction is now irrelevant 
since current analysis tools for technologies and associated failure 
effects do not consider number of engines as required input.
    The proposed rule would clarify the requirement to perform a proper 
failure analysis and also recognize that the severity of failures can 
vary. Since the current rule was promulgated, the number of failure 
condition categories has varied. Current industry standards and 
practices recognize five failure condition categories: Catastrophic, 
Hazardous, Major, Minor, and No-Safety Effect. The proposed rule 
recognizes the maximum and minimum failure effects without prescribing 
the number of failure effect severity categories. This proposed change 
would also accommodate future changes in industry failure analysis 
techniques and reflect current certification practices. Additionally, 
it would eliminate the need to issue recurring special conditions and 
remove the additional time and cost to industry.
    The changes proposed for Sec. Sec.  27.1309 and 29.1309 would make 
the sections consistent. These changes would remove the necessity to 
reference Sec.  29.1309 in appendix C of part 27. Although a specific 
reference to Sec.  27.1309 would not be added, appendix C of part 27 
already requires compliance with all of part 27 for Category A 
certification. These proposed changes would not eliminate the 
requirement to reassess compliance with Sec.  27.1309 for applicants 
who request Category A operations. The FAA proposes to change appendix 
C to delete the reference to Sec.  29.1309.
    The FAA proposes to update Sec.  29.1309 to be consistent with 
industry standards and practices for conducting failure analysis. These 
proposed changes are intended to allow flexibility in the types of 
assessments applicants may provide for showing compliance.

[[Page 50586]]

    Section 29.1309 currently requires applicants to assess the effects 
of failures resulting from installed systems and equipment. The current 
rule also identifies differences in the depth of assessing failures 
between Category A and Category B \4\ rotorcraft. Complex and highly 
integrated systems were typically installed in part 29 rotorcraft 
certificated for Category A operations. Like the distinction between 
single-engine and multi-engine rotorcraft discussed previously, this 
distinction was made because the FAA did not envision that complex and 
highly integrated systems would be installed in rotorcraft certificated 
for Category B operations. This distinction is now irrelevant since 
current analysis tools for technologies and associated failure effects 
do not differ between Category A and Category B. The FAA proposes to 
add an introductory paragraph and revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to 
clarify that all equipment, systems, and installations on the 
rotorcraft must be analyzed and to remove the distinction between 
Category A and B. Although the effects of the failures may be 
different, the method for conducting the failure analysis is the same 
regardless of the operations evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In 14 CFR 1.1, Category B, with respect to transport 
category rotorcraft, means single-engine or multiengine rotorcraft 
which do not fully meet all Category A standards. Category B 
rotorcraft have no guaranteed stay-up ability in the event of engine 
failure and unscheduled landing is assumed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The term ``warning'' in Sec.  29.1309(c) and (d) has been 
interpreted as requiring a red level alert, when the intent was to 
notify the crew of all required annunciations. Therefore, the FAA 
proposes to modify paragraphs (c) and (d) by removing the terms 
``warning'' and ``probability'' and replacing them with 
``annunciation'' and ``effect'' respectively, and adding ``misleading 
data'' as a standard failure mode.
    The FAA also proposes removing the requirements of Sec.  29.1309(e) 
and (f) dealing specifically with electrical systems as they are 
covered by Sec. Sec.  29.1351, 29.1353, 29.1355, and 29.1357.

D. Automatic Flight Guidance and Control Systems (Sec. Sec.  27.1329, 
27.1335, 29.1329, and 29.1335)

    The FAA proposes to standardize terminology and combine the 
requirements for automatic pilot and flight director systems into one 
rule. Sections 27.1329 and 29.1329 address automatic pilot systems 
while Sec. Sec.  27.1335 and 29.1335 address flight director systems. 
At the time these rules were promulgated, the functionality of designs 
prompted a separate rule for each system. Since then, systems for 
automatic control of flight have evolved. Modern designs include both 
automatic pilot and flight director systems and are now referred to as 
automatic flight guidance and control systems. Having these systems in 
separate rules that use different terminology has resulted in some 
confusion. The proposed changes would remove Sec. Sec.  27.1335 and 
29.1335 and incorporate the requirements into Sec. Sec.  27.1329 and 
29.1329. The FAA also proposes to use the term ``automatic flight 
guidance and control systems'' to address both automatic pilot and 
flight director systems, as well as the components.

E. Instrument Systems (Sec.  29.1333 and Appendix B to Parts 27 and 29)

    Currently, Sec.  29.1333(a) requires isolating the pilot instrument 
system from any other operating systems. At the time the rule was 
promulgated, these systems were federated, and connecting these systems 
increased the likelihood that a fault in one system would cause a fault 
in the pilot instrument system. This physical independence between the 
pilot system and other operating systems prevented the pilot system's 
reliability from being compromised by other operating systems. With the 
adoption of microprocessor technology and the trend towards complex and 
highly integrated systems, the requirement for physical independence is 
no longer appropriate. The use of this technology resulted in an 
exponential increase in the number of ways rotorcraft systems can fail 
and a decrease in the discernibility of such failures. To ensure the 
reliability of the pilot system is not compromised when utilizing 
microprocessors or highly integrated systems, modern designs allow 
redundant systems in the rotorcraft to compare information. Rotorcraft 
cannot utilize current technology, and redundant systems cannot compare 
information, when the pilot instrument system is isolated.
    The FAA proposes to revise Sec.  29.1333(a) and section 
VIII(b)(5)(i) of appendix B to parts 27 and 29 to make them applicable 
only to pneumatic systems. These proposed changes would allow for the 
use of modern technology to monitor and display highly integrated 
information regarding the rotorcraft that is currently not permitted. 
The FAA also proposes revising appendix B to parts 27 and 29 to remove 
the amendment level as previously discussed in section B of the 
preamble.

F. Electrical Systems and Equipment (Sec.  29.1351) and Energy Storage 
Systems (Sec. Sec.  27.1353 and 29.1353)

    The FAA proposes changing Sec. Sec.  27.1353 and 29.1353 to provide 
a general regulation that is not directed at a particular battery or 
battery chemistry. The existing regulations were first written when 
backup electrical power was provided solely by a lead acid battery. The 
regulations were later amended to add requirements specific to the 
nickel-cadmium battery chemistry. Recently, batteries have been 
developed using various lithium chemistries. Lead acid, nickel-cadmium, 
and lithium batteries are all energy storage devices with different 
operational parameters and failure mechanisms. Rather than add specific 
lithium battery requirements, which would necessitate further 
amendments to address future energy storage chemistries, the FAA is 
proposing to generalize the regulation to accommodate any energy 
storage system. The proposed regulation would be less prescriptive than 
the existing regulation.
    The FAA's intent with this proposal is that the modified regulation 
would be directly applicable to both lead acid and nickel-cadmium 
batteries without imposing additional requirements. In addition, this 
generalized approach would allow the FAA to consider batteries, fuel 
cells, or any other energy storage device not yet developed. Certain 
attributes tied to a specific battery chemistry currently found in the 
regulation would be addressed in AC 27-1B and AC 29-2C. These proposed 
changes to Sec. Sec.  27.1353 and 29.1353 are intended to reduce the 
burden on the FAA and the rotorcraft industry associated with issuing 
special conditions and the related issue papers.
    Section 29.1353, paragraphs (a) and (b) would be moved into Sec.  
29.1351 as paragraphs (e) and (f) respectively. These paragraphs are 
general requirements for all electrical systems and equipment 
installations. This change is proposed for consistency because those 
requirements are more appropriate in Sec.  29.1351. This proposed 
change would standardize the requirements of Sec. Sec.  27.1353 and 
29.1353 and both section titles would be changed to ``Energy storage 
systems'' to properly reflect the new language.

G. Instrument Markings (Sec. Sec.  27.1545, 29.1545, 27.1549, and 
29.1549)

    The FAA proposes to modify Sec. Sec.  27.1545(b)(4), 27.1549(b), 
29.1545(b)(4), and 29.1549(b) by eliminating the restriction of only 
using

[[Page 50587]]

a ``green arc'' to indicate normal operating ranges. The existing rules 
require using a green arc for normal operating ranges on airspeed and 
powerplant instruments. Modern glass cockpits generally do not contain 
these green indicators. The philosophy utilized by modern cockpit 
designs is the ``dark, quiet cockpit,'' and only yellow or red is 
presented to indicate the aircraft is outside the normal or safe 
operating range. The absence of green arcs did not meet the requirement 
of the rule. Since the rule was promulgated, the FAA has determined 
that if all abnormal conditions are otherwise adequately indicated, 
green markings are unnecessary. These accepted design features include 
the pilot being able to easily interpret (by way of glancing at the 
instrument) whether a parameter is in a precautionary range (yellow) or 
beyond a limit (red). Almost every current rotorcraft design now 
incorporates a glass cockpit that requires an ELOS finding for the 
absence of green arcs. This proposal only affects the color utilized 
for the normal operating ranges and does not address graduation 
markings on an instrument.
    The FAA also proposes to remove the term ``radial'' from Sec. Sec.  
27.1545(b)(1), 27.1549(a), 29.1545(b)(1), and 29.1549(a). At the time 
these rules were promulgated, cockpit instruments were circular, and 
therefore the technically-correct term ``radial line'' was used. 
Technological advances have since produced linear-scale gauges 
rendering the term ``radial'' obsolete. The term ``line'' is intended 
to represent a radial for round instruments or a line for tape or other 
style instruments.
    The FAA further proposes to replace ``arc'' with ``range'' in 
Sec. Sec.  27.1545(b)(3), 27.1545(b)(4), 27.1549(b), 27.1549(c), 
27.1549(d), 29.1545(b)(3), 29.1545(b)(4), 29.1549(b), 29.1549(c), and 
29.1549(d). When these regulations were created, cockpit instruments 
were circular. ``Arc'' is a term that only applies to round gauges and 
not to tape or other style instruments, which are in popular use today. 
The FAA intends ``range'' to be applied to round, tape, or other style 
instruments.
    Finally, the FAA proposes to move the requirement for indicating 
VNE (power-off) from Sec.  27.1545(b)(2) to Sec.  
27.1545(b)(1)(iii) and modify it to encompass designs that incorporate 
a means other than a red cross-hatched line. The FAA has previously 
accepted designs that utilize a single red line for VNE 
(power-on) and VNE (power-off) when not concurrently 
displayed. Additionally, a red and white cross-hatched ``barber pole'' 
may not be the only acceptable method for distinguishing VNE 
(power-off) from VNE (power-on). The FAA also proposes to 
apply this change to Sec.  29.1545.

H. Control Markings (Sec. Sec.  27.1555 and 29.1555)

    The FAA proposes to modify Sec. Sec.  27.1555(c)(1) and 
29.1555(c)(1) to permit more than one method to inform the pilot of the 
usable fuel system capacity. The existing rules require marking the 
usable fuel capacity at the fuel quantity indicator. Older, analog fuel 
gauges (many without numbers) used a placard to inform the pilot of the 
useful fuel quantity. With modern display systems, the location of the 
fuel quantity indicator, as well as the fact that the location may 
change, make it impractical to affix a placard next to the display. In 
addition, although useful fuel capacity is commonly included in the 
rotorcraft flight manual, the proposed alternate method would make this 
a requirement to address the lack of continuous display provided by a 
placard.

I. Typographical and Standardizing Corrections (Sec. Sec.  27.87, 
27.903, 29.955, 29.977, 29.1019, 29.1517, and 29.1587)

    The FAA proposes to correct several typographical errors and to 
revise certain terminology differences between part 27 and part 29. 
First, the FAA proposes to revise the title of Sec.  27.87 to coincide 
with the title of Sec.  29.87, which is the equivalent transport 
category rotorcraft requirement. The title of Sec.  29.87 was changed 
from ``Limiting height-speed envelope'' to ``Height-velocity envelope'' 
in order to ``agree with the commonly used term.'' However, the 
corresponding title to Sec.  27.87 was not similarly changed at that 
time.
    The FAA also proposes to replace the term ``height-speed'' with the 
term ``height-velocity'' throughout Sec. Sec.  27.1587, 29.1587, and 
29.1517 to be consistent with the title nomenclature of Sec. Sec.  
27.87 and 29.87. These proposed changes are intended to reduce 
confusion between and within parts 27 and 29.
    The FAA also proposes to reformat Sec.  27.903(d) so that it is 
consistent with the format of the Sec.  29.903(e) engine restart 
capability requirement. When the Sec.  27.903(d) restart capability 
requirements were adopted, the paragraph structure of the existing 
Sec.  29.903(e) was not used even though the technical requirements 
were intended to be identical. The restart capability requirements of 
Sec.  27.903(d) are not being changed in this proposal. These proposed 
changes are intended to reduce confusion between part 27 and part 29 by 
using a standard format for the same technical requirements.
    The FAA proposes to correct a typographical error in Sec. Sec.  
29.955 and 29.1019. When Sec.  29.1305 was updated to add a requirement 
for an oil pressure indicator for pressure-lubricated gearboxes, the 
numbering sequence was changed when the additional requirement was 
inserted at paragraph (a)(6). The Sec.  29.1305(a)(17) fuel filter 
contamination warning was moved to paragraph (a)(18), and the Sec.  
29.1305(a)(18) turbine engine filter contamination warning was moved to 
paragraph (a)(19). However, the reference to the fuel filter 
contamination warning in Sec.  29.955(a)(7) and the turbine engine 
filter contamination warning in Sec.  29.1019(a)(5) were not updated to 
account for the change in numbering sequence. This proposed change 
would correct the reference at Sec. Sec.  29.955(a)(7) and 
29.1019(a)(5).
    Finally, the FAA proposes to correct a typographical error in Sec.  
29.977. When Sec.  29.977 was updated, it incorrectly carried over 
references to ``airplanes'' from an identical part 23 update. The 
proposed change would revise Sec.  29.977 by removing the term 
``airplanes'' and replacing it with the term ``rotorcraft.''

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct 
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 (Pub. 
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of 
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act 
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create 
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In 
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
of U.S. standards. 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 with 
base year of 1995).

[[Page 50588]]

This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the 
economic impacts of this proposed rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The 
reasoning for this determination follows:
    The FAA proposes to revise regulations in 14 CFR part 27 
(Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft) and part 29 
(Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Rotorcraft) related to the 
certification of rotorcraft. The proposed changes are necessary due to 
advancing technologies, which address a lack of adequate airworthiness 
standards resulting from increasing design complexity. As a result, 
many regulatory sections are subject to reoccurring special conditions, 
ELOS, and MOC issue papers. This proposed rulemaking would address 
these problem areas by updating the rules that cause unnecessary 
burdens in cost and time to both the FAA and the rotorcraft industry. 
The compliance cost to industry of these proposed regulation changes 
would be minimal. The justification for minimal cost by regulation is 
identified in sections 1 through 9 below.
1. Powerplant Instruments (Sec. Sec.  27.1305 and 29.1305)
    Changes to this section would allow for other means of compliance 
for powerplant instrument indicators. Other means of compliance are 
voluntary and do not impose any new cost but could be cost relieving 
for those that choose to voluntarily comply. Additionally, for Sec.  
29.1305, the FAA would permit manipulating the powerplant instruments 
to simulate OEI conditions without damaging the engines. However, 
helicopters with OEI Training Mode would require additional indicators 
to differentiate the OEI condition from actual engine failure, but 
these indicators are already being installed in current rotorcraft. The 
FAA believes this proposed change would impose minimal new cost to 
industry, as these are current industry practice.
2. Normal Category Rotorcraft Equipment, Systems, and Installations 
(Sec.  27.1309 and Appendix C to Part 27)
    The FAA clarifies the requirement to perform proper failure 
analysis that would adopt the current industry practice of five failure 
category conditions. Additionally, the FAA eliminates the distinction 
between single-engine and multi-engine rotorcraft as this distinction 
is irrelevant because current analysis tools for technologies and 
associated failure effects no longer consider the number of engines. As 
these are current industry practice, the FAA asserts that the cost 
associated with these changes is minimal.
3. Transport Category Rotorcraft Equipment, Systems, and Installation 
(Sec.  29.1309)
    This section would be updated to be consistent with industry 
standards and practices for conducting failure analysis. The proposed 
rule would clarify the requirement to perform a proper failure analysis 
and also recognize that the severity of failures can vary. The FAA 
asserts that performing a proper failure analysis would be minimal cost 
as it would codify current industry practices. Additionally, this 
section would be changed to accommodate future changes in industry 
failure analysis techniques and reflects current certification 
practices. Moving to a performance based standard would reduce the need 
to issue recurring special conditions and potentially save manufactures 
that choose to use an alternative means of compliance. Thus, these 
proposed changes would impose minimal cost.
4. Automatic Flight Guidance and Control Systems (Sec. Sec.  27.1329, 
27.1335, 29.1329, and 29.1335)
    The FAA proposes to standardize terminology and combine the 
requirements for automatic pilot and flight director systems into one 
rule. Modern designs include both automatic pilot and flight director 
systems and are now referred to as automatic flight guidance and 
control systems. Changes to this section would match current industry 
practices at a minimal cost.
5. Instrument Systems (Sec.  29.1333 and Appendix B to Parts 27 and 29)
    The FAA proposed change would allow for the use of more modern 
integrated systems to monitor and display highly integrated information 
regarding the rotorcraft. This section would impose minimal cost as the 
updates reflect modern industry practices of integrating instrument 
systems.
6. Electrical Systems and Equipment (Sec.  29.1351) and Energy Storage 
Systems (Sec. Sec.  27.1353 and 29.1353)
    The FAA proposed changes are less prescriptive and performance-
based to accommodate different energy storage systems. The modified 
regulation would be directly applicable to both lead acid and nickel-
cadmium batteries without imposing additional requirements. The change 
would allow the FAA to keep up with changes in technology. Cost to the 
industry should be minimal as performance based requirements allow for 
minimal cost options to meet the current standard.
7. Instrument Markings (Sec. Sec.  27.1545, 29.1545, 27.1549, and 
29.1549)
    The proposed rule would remove the restrictive requirement for some 
instrument markings to allow alternative means of compliance, i.e.--
green arc, radial red line, etc. Allowing for another means of 
compliance is voluntary and would be either a minimal cost and possibly 
cost relieving for manufactures that elect to outfit the rotorcraft 
with different instrument markings.
8. Control Markings (Sec. Sec.  27.1555 and 29.1555)
    The proposed rule would permit more than one method to inform the 
pilot of the usable fuel system capacity. However, alternative method 
must address the lack of continuous display. Changes to this section 
allows for more than one means of compliance. Offering alternative 
means of compliance allows industry to meet the requirement with the 
least costly option that can be cost relieving or the existing method 
of compliance, but either method would be no more than minimal cost.
9. Typographical and Standardizing Corrections (Sec. Sec.  27.87, 
27.903, 29.955, 29.977, 29.1019, 29.1517, and 29.1587)
    Costs for proposed changes to this section are minimal as these are 
strictly typographical or standardizing corrections.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The FAA requests comments with 
supporting justification about the FAA determination of minimal cost 
impact.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that

[[Page 50589]]

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and 
of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational 
requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and 
governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this 
principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible 
regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to 
assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.'' The RFA 
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 rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. 
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so 
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The 
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for 
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    The FAA proposes to amend the certification standards of normal and 
transport category helicopters. The proposed changes reflect modern 
designs currently used in the rotorcraft industry and would reduce the 
burden on applicants for certification of new rotorcraft designs. The 
proposed changes would reduce or eliminate the need for certain special 
conditions currently required to obtain certification of modern 
rotorcraft. This proposed rule would merely revise and clarify FAA 
rulemaking procedures; the expected outcome will have only a minimal 
cost impact on any small entity affected by this rulemaking action.
    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. 
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies 
that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a 
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that 
the potential benefits are available to both domestic and international 
firms which would either have no affect or a positive effect on 
international trade.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, 
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that 
there would be no new requirement for information collection associated 
with this proposed rule.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these proposed regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6.f and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has 
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect 
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and 
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have 
Federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it 
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order 
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

VI. Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this 
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency 
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, 
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in 
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion 
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and 
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain 
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written 
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should 
submit only one time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well 
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA 
personnel concerning

[[Page 50590]]

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will 
consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for 
comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period 
has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or 
delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it 
receives.
    Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should 
not file proprietary or confidential business information in the 
docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the 
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting 
information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD 
ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific 
information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary 
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the 
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have 
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received 
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information, 
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act 
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of 
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending 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. 
Commenters must identify the docket number of this rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, 
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from 
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 
(1) above.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 27

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 29

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

0
1. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  27.87 by revising the section heading and paragraph (a) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  27.87  Height-velocity envelope.

    (a) If there is any combination of height and forward speed 
(including hover) under which a safe landing cannot be made under the 
applicable power failure condition in paragraph (b) of this section, a 
limiting height-velocity envelope must be established (including all 
pertinent information) for that condition, throughout the ranges of--
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  27.903 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.903  Engines.

* * * * *
    (d) Restart capability. (1) A means to restart any engine in flight 
must be provided.
    (2) Except for the in-flight shutdown of all engines, engine 
restart capability must be demonstrated throughout a flight envelope 
for the rotorcraft.
    (3) Following the in-flight shutdown of all engines, in-flight 
engine restart capability must be provided.
0
4. Amend Sec.  27.1305 by revising paragraphs (e), (k) introductory 
text, (n), and (o) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1305  Powerplant instruments.

* * * * *
    (e) A means to indicate manifold pressure for each altitude engine.
* * * * *
    (k) A means to indicate the r.p.m. of each engine and at least one 
tachometer, as applicable, for:
* * * * *
    (n) A means to indicate the gas temperature for each turbine 
engine.
    (o) A means to enable the pilot to determine the torque of each 
turbine engine, if a torque limitation is established for that engine 
under Sec.  27.1521(e).
* * * * *
0
5. Revise Sec.  27.1309 to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1309  Equipment, systems, and installations.

    The equipment, systems, and installations whose functioning is 
required by this subchapter must be designed and installed to ensure 
that they perform their intended functions under any foreseeable 
operating condition. For any item of equipment or system whose failure 
has not been specifically addressed by another requirement in this 
chapter, the following requirements also apply:
    (a) The design of each item of equipment, system, and installation 
must be analyzed separately and in relation to other rotorcraft systems 
and installations to determine and identify any failure that would 
affect the capability of the rotorcraft or the ability of the crew to 
perform their duties in all operating conditions.
    (b) Each item of equipment, system, and installation must be 
designed and installed so that:
    (1) The occurrence of any catastrophic failure condition is 
extremely improbable;
    (2) The occurrence of any minor failure condition is no more than 
probable; and
    (3) For the occurrence of any other failure condition, the 
probability of the failure condition must be inversely proportional to 
its consequences.
    (c) A means to alert the crew in the event of a failure must be 
provided when an unsafe system operating condition exists to enable 
them to take corrective action. Systems, controls, and associated 
monitoring and crew alerting means must be designed to minimize crew 
errors that could create additional hazards.
    (d) Compliance with the requirements of this section must be shown 
by analysis and, where necessary, by ground, flight, or simulator 
tests. The analysis must account for:
    (1) Possible modes of failure, including malfunctions and 
misleading data and input from external sources;
    (2) The effect of multiple failures and latent failures;
    (3) The resulting effects on the rotorcraft and occupants, 
considering the stage of flight and operating conditions; and
    (4) The crew warning cues and the corrective action required.
0
6. Amend Sec.  27.1329 by revising the section heading, adding 
introductory

[[Page 50591]]

text, and revising paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1329  Automatic flight guidance and control system.

    For the purpose of this subpart, an automatic flight guidance and 
control system may consist of an autopilot, flight director, or a 
component that interacts with stability augmentation or trim.
    (a) Each automatic flight guidance and control system must be 
designed so that it:
    (1) Can be overpowered by the pilot to allow control of the 
rotorcraft;
    (2) Provides a means to disengage the system by the pilot to 
prevent it from interfering with the control of the rotorcraft; and
    (3) Provides a means to indicate to the flight crew its current 
mode of operation.
    Selector switch position is not acceptable as a means of 
indication.
* * * * *
    (d) The system must be designed so that, within the range of 
adjustment available to the pilot, it cannot produce hazardous loads on 
the rotorcraft, or create hazardous deviations in the flight path, 
under any flight condition appropriate to its use or in the event of a 
malfunction.
    (e) If the automatic flight guidance and control system integrates 
signals from auxiliary controls or furnishes signals for operation of 
other equipment, there must be a means to prevent improper operation.
* * * * *


Sec.  27.1335  [Removed]

0
7. Remove Sec.  27.1335.
0
8. Revise Sec.  27.1353 to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1353  Energy storage systems.

    Energy storage systems must be designed and installed as follows:
    (a) Energy storage systems must provide automatic protective 
features for any conditions that could prevent continued safe flight 
and landing.
    (b) Energy storage systems must not emit any explosive or toxic 
gases, smoke, or fluids except through designed venting provisions and 
must not accumulate in hazardous quantities within the rotorcraft.
    (c) Corrosive fluids or gases that escape from the system must not 
damage surrounding structures, adjacent equipment, or systems necessary 
for continued safe flight and landing.
    (d) The maximum amount of heat that can be generated during any 
operation or under any failure condition of the energy storage system 
or its individual components must not result in any hazardous effect on 
rotorcraft structure, equipment, or systems necessary for continued 
safe flight and landing.
    (e) Energy storage system installations required for continued safe 
flight and landing of the rotorcraft must have monitoring features and 
a means to indicate to the pilot the status of all critical system 
parameters.
0
9. Amend Sec.  27.1545 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1545  Airspeed indicator.

* * * * *
    (b) The following markings must be made:
    (1) A red line--
    (i) For rotorcraft other than helicopters, at VNE.
    (ii) For helicopters, at VNE (power-on).
    (iii) For helicopters, at VNE (power-off). If 
VNE (power-off) is less than VNE (power-on) and 
both are simultaneously displayed, the red line at VNE 
(power-off) must be clearly distinguishable from the red line at 
VNE (power-on).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3) For the caution range, a yellow range.
    (4) For the normal operating range, a green or unmarked range.
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec.  27.1549 by revising paragraphs (a) through (d) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  27.1549  Powerplant instruments.

* * * * *
    (a) Each maximum and, if applicable, minimum safe operating limit 
must be marked with a red line;
    (b) Each normal operating range must be marked as a green or 
unmarked range;
    (c) Each takeoff and precautionary range must be marked with a 
yellow range or yellow line; and
    (d) Each engine or propeller range that is restricted because of 
excessive vibration stresses must be marked with red ranges or red 
lines.
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec.  27.1555 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  27.1555  Control markings.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) For fuel systems having no selector controls, the usable fuel 
capacity of the system must be indicated at the fuel quantity indicator 
unless it is:
    (i) Provided by another system or equipment readily accessible to 
the pilot; and
    (ii) Contained in the limitations section of the rotorcraft flight 
manual.
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec.  27.1587 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  27.1587  Performance information.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Enough information to determine the limiting height-velocity 
envelope.
* * * * *
0
13. Amend appendix B to part 27 by revising paragraphs VIII 
introductory text and VIII(b)(5)(i) to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 27--Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter Instrument 
Flight

* * * * *
    VIII. Equipment, systems, and installation. The basic equipment and 
installation must comply with Sec. Sec.  29.1303, 29.1431, and 29.1433, 
with the following exceptions and additions:
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) For pneumatic systems, only the required flight instruments for 
the first pilot may be connected to that operating system;
* * * * *

Appendix C to Part 27 [Amended]

0
14. In appendix C to part 27, amend paragraph C27.2 by removing the 
entry ``29.1309(b)(2) (i) and (d)-Equipment, systems, and 
installations.''

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

0
15. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:

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

0
16. Amend Sec.  29.955 by revising paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows:


Sec.  29.955  Fuel flow.

    (a) * * *
    (7) The fuel filter required by Sec.  29.997 is blocked to the 
degree necessary to simulate the accumulation of fuel contamination 
required to activate the indicator required by Sec.  29.1305(a)(18).
* * * * *
0
17. Amend Sec.  29.977 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  29.977  Fuel tank outlet.

    (a) * * *
    (1) For reciprocating engine powered rotorcraft, have 8 to 16 
meshes per inch; and
    (2) For turbine engine powered rotorcraft, prevent the passage of 
any object that could restrict fuel flow or damage any fuel system 
component.
* * * * *
0
18. Amend Sec.  29.1019 by revising paragraph (a)(5) to read as 
follows:

[[Page 50592]]

Sec.  29.1019  Oil strainer or filter.

    (a) * * *
    (5) An oil strainer or filter that has no bypass, except one that 
is installed at an oil tank outlet, must have a means to connect it to 
the warning system required in Sec.  29.1305(a)(19).
* * * * *
0
19. Amend Sec.  29.1305 by revising paragraphs (a)(5), (11), and (12) 
and adding (b)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  29.1305  Powerplant instruments.

    (a) * * *
    (5) A means to indicate manifold pressure for each reciprocating 
engine of the altitude type;
* * * * *
    (11) A means to indicate the gas temperature for each turbine 
engine;
    (12) A means to indicate the gas producer speed for each turbine 
engine;
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) For each Category A rotorcraft for which OEI Training Mode is 
requested, a means must be provided to indicate to the pilot the 
simulation of an engine failure, the annunciation of that simulation, 
and a representation of the OEI power being provided.
* * * * *
0
20. Revise Sec.  29.1309 to read as follows:


Sec.  29.1309  Equipment, systems, and installations.

    The equipment, systems, and installations whose functioning is 
required by this subchapter must be designed and installed to ensure 
that they perform their intended functions under any foreseeable 
operating condition. For any item of equipment or system whose failure 
has not been specifically addressed by another requirement in this 
chapter, the following requirements also apply:
    (a) The design of each item of equipment, system, and installation 
must be analyzed separately and in relation to other rotorcraft systems 
and installations to determine and identify any failure that would 
affect the capability of the rotorcraft or the ability of the crew to 
perform their duties in all operating conditions.
    (b) Each item of equipment, system, and installation must be 
designed and installed so that:
    (1) The occurrence of any catastrophic failure condition is 
extremely improbable;
    (2) The occurrence of any minor failure condition is no more than 
probable; and
    (3) For the occurrence of any other failure condition, the 
probability of the failure condition must be inversely proportional to 
its consequences.
    (c) A means to alert the crew in the event of a failure must be 
provided when an unsafe system operating condition exists and to enable 
them to take corrective action. Systems, controls, and associated 
monitoring and crew alerting means must be designed to minimize crew 
errors that could create additional hazards.
    (d) Compliance with the requirements of this section must be shown 
by analysis and, where necessary, by ground, flight, or simulator 
tests. The analysis must account for:
    (1) Possible modes of failure, including malfunctions and 
misleading data and input from external sources;
    (2) The effect of multiple failures and latent failures;
    (3) The resulting effects on the rotorcraft and occupants, 
considering the stage of flight and operating conditions; and
    (4) The crew warning cues and the corrective action required.
0
21. Amend Sec.  29.1329 by revising the section heading, adding 
introductory text, and revising paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  29.1329  Automatic flight guidance and control system.

    For the purpose of this subpart, an automatic flight guidance and 
control system may consist of an autopilot, flight director, or a 
component that interacts with stability augmentation or trim.
    (a) Each automatic flight guidance and control system must be 
designed so that it:
    (1) Can be overpowered by the pilot to allow control of the 
rotorcraft;
    (2) Provides a means to disengage the system by the pilot to 
prevent it from interfering with the control of the rotorcraft; and
    (3) Provides a means to indicate to the flight crew its current 
mode of operation. Selector switch position is not acceptable as a 
means of indication.
* * * * *
    (d) The system must be designed so that, within the range of 
adjustment available to the pilot, it cannot produce hazardous loads on 
the rotorcraft, or create hazardous deviations in the flight path, 
under any flight condition appropriate to its use or in the event of a 
malfunction.
    (e) If the automatic flight guidance and control system integrates 
signals from auxiliary controls or furnishes signals for operation of 
other equipment, there must be a means to prevent improper operation.
* * * * *
0
22. Amend Sec.  29.1333 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  29.1333  Instrument systems.

* * * * *
    (a) For pneumatic systems, only the required flight instruments for 
the first pilot may be connected to that operating system.
* * * * *


Sec.  29.1335  [Removed]

0
23. Remove Sec.  29.1335.
0
24. Amend Sec.  29.1351 by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  29.1351  General.

* * * * *
    (e) Electrical equipment, controls, and wiring must be installed so 
that operation of any one unit or system of units will not adversely 
affect the simultaneous operation of any other electrical unit or 
system essential to safe operation.
    (f) Cables must be grouped, routed, and spaced so that damage to 
essential circuits will be minimized if there are faults in heavy 
current-carrying cables.
* * * * *
0
25. Revise Sec.  29.1353 to read as follows:


Sec.  29.1353  Energy storage systems.

    Energy storage systems must be designed and installed as follows:
    (a) Energy storage systems must provide automatic protective 
features for any conditions that could prevent continued safe flight 
and landing.
    (b) Energy storage systems must not emit any explosive or toxic 
gases, smoke, or fluids except through designed venting provisions and 
must not accumulate in hazardous quantities within the rotorcraft.
    (c) Corrosive fluids or gases that escape from the system must not 
damage surrounding structures, adjacent equipment, or systems necessary 
for continued safe flight and landing.
    (d) The maximum amount of heat that can be generated during any 
operation or under any failure condition of the energy storage system 
or its individual components must not result in any hazardous effect on 
rotorcraft structure, equipment, or systems necessary for continued 
safe flight and landing.
    (e) Energy storage system installations required for continued safe 
flight and landing of the rotorcraft must have monitoring features and 
a means to indicate to the pilot the status of all critical system 
parameters.
0
26. Amend Sec.  29.1517 by revising the section heading to read as 
follows:

[[Page 50593]]

Sec.  29.1517  Limiting height-velocity envelope.

* * * * *
0
27. Amend Sec.  29.1545 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  29.1545  Airspeed indicator.

* * * * *
    (b) The following markings must be made:
    (1) A red line:
    (i) For rotorcraft other than helicopters, at VNE.
    (ii) For helicopters, at a VNE (power-on).
    (iii) For helicopters, at VNE (power-off). If 
VNE (power-off) is less than VNE (power-on) and 
both are simultaneously displayed, the red line at VNE 
(power-off) must be clearly distinguishable from the red line at 
VNE (power-on).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3) For the caution range, a yellow range.
    (4) For the normal operating range, a green or unmarked range.
* * * * *
0
28. Amend Sec.  29.1549 by revising paragraphs (a) through (d) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  29.1549  Powerplant instruments.

* * * * *
    (a) Each maximum and, if applicable, minimum safe operating limit 
must be marked with a red line;
    (b) Each normal operating range must be marked as a green or 
unmarked range;
    (c) Each takeoff and precautionary range must be marked with a 
yellow range or yellow line;
    (d) Each engine or propeller range that is restricted because of 
excessive vibration stresses must be marked with red ranges or red 
lines; and
* * * * *
0
29. Amend Sec.  29.1555 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  29.1555  Control markings.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) For fuel systems having no selector controls, the usable fuel 
capacity of the system must be indicated at the fuel quantity indicator 
unless it is:
    (i) Provided by another system or equipment readily accessible to 
the pilot; and
    (ii) Contained in the limitations section of the rotorcraft flight 
manual.
* * * * *
0
30. Amend Sec.  29.1587 by revising paragraph (b)(6) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  29.1587  Performance information.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) The height-velocity envelope except for rotorcraft 
incorporating this as an operating limitation;
* * * * *
0
31. Amend appendix B to part 29 by revising paragraphs VIII 
introductory text and VIII(b)(5)(i) to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 29--Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter Instrument 
Flight

* * * * *
    VIII. Equipment, systems, and installation. The basic equipment and 
installation must comply with Sec. Sec.  29.1303, 29.1431, and 29.1433, 
with the following exceptions and additions:
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) For pneumatic systems, only the required flight instruments for 
the first pilot may be connected to that operating system;
* * * * *

    Issued under authority provided by (Consult AGC) 49 U.S.C. 
106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in Washington, DC, on October 19, 2017.
David W. Hempe,
Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Operations, Aircraft 
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-23360 Filed 10-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 50583

tolerance must be considered when 9. The applicant must include design certification of new rotorcraft designs.
showing compliance with § 25.571. features that ensure the wingtips are The proposed changes would reduce or
4. The folding wingtips and their properly secured during ground eliminate the need for certain special
operating mechanism must be designed operations, to protect ground personnel conditions currently required to obtain
for 65 knot, horizontal, ground-gust from bodily injury as well as to prevent certification of modern rotorcraft. The
conditions in any direction as specified damage to the airframe, ground proposed changes would also
in § 25.415(a). Relevant design structure, and ground support incorporate the requirements of
conditions must be defined using equipment. equivalent level of safety findings that
combinations of steady wind and taxi 10. The wingtips must have means to the FAA has imposed as conditions for
speeds determined by rational analysis safeguard against unlocking from the approving certain design features.
utilizing airport wind data. The folding extended, flight-deployed position in DATES: Send comments on or before
wingtip is not a control surface as flight, as a result of failures, including January 30, 2018.
specified in § 25.415(b)(c). Therefore, in the failure of any single structural ADDRESSES: Send comments identified
lieu of the equation provided in element. All sources of airplane power by docket number FAA–2017–0990
§ 25.415(b), the hinge moment may be that could initiate unlocking of the using any of the following methods:
calculated from rational wind-tunnel wingtips must be automatically isolated • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
data. The 1.25 factor specified in from the wingtip-fold operating system http://www.regulations.gov and follow
§ 25.415(d) need not be applied to the (including the latching and locking the online instructions for sending your
portion of the system that is isolated in system) prior to flight, and it must not comments electronically.
flight and is not critical for safe flight be possible to restore power to the • Mail: Send comments to Docket
and landing. The folding-wingtip system during flight. The wingtip Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of
system must be designed for the latching and locking mechanisms must Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey
conditions specified in § 25.415(e), (f), be designed so that, under all airplane Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West
and (g). Runway roughness, as specified flight-load conditions, no force or torque Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC
in § 25.491, must be evaluated can unlatch or unlock the mechanisms. 20590–0001.
separately up to the maximum relevant The latching system must include a • Hand Delivery or Courier: Take
airplane ground speeds. All of the above means to secure the latches in the comments to Docket Operations in
conditions must be applied to the latched position, independent of the Room W12–140 of the West Building
folding wingtips in the extended (flight- locking system. It must not be possible Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
deployed), folded, and transient to position the lock in the locked Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
positions. position if the latches and the latching
5. The airplane must demonstrate a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
mechanisms are not in the latched Friday, except Federal holidays.
acceptable handling qualities during
rollout in a crosswind environment, as
position, and it must not be possible to • Fax: Fax comments to Docket
unlatch the latches with the locks in the Operations at 202–493–2251.
wingtips transition from the flight-
locked position. Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
deployed to folded position, as well as
during the unlikely event of asymmetric Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
wingtip folding. 25, 2017. public to better inform its rulemaking
6. The wingtip-fold operating Victor Wicklund, process. DOT posts these comments,
mechanism must have stops that Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, without edit, including any personal
positively limit the range of motion of Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft information the commenter provides, to
the wingtips. Each stop must be Certification Service. www.regulations.gov, as described in
designed to the requirements of [FR Doc. 2017–23698 Filed 10–31–17; 8:45 am] the system of records notice (DOT/ALL–
§ 25.675. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
7. The wingtip hinge structure must www.dot.gov/privacy.
be designed for inertia loads acting Docket: Background documents or
parallel to the hinge line. In the absence DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION comments received may be read at
of more rational data, the inertia loads http://www.regulations.gov at any time.
may be assumed to be equal to KW as Federal Aviation Administration Follow the online instructions for
referenced in § 25.393. Hinge design accessing the docket or go to the Docket
must meet the requirements of § 25.657. 14 CFR Parts 27 and 29 Operations in Room W12–140 of the
8. In lieu of § 25.1385(b): The forward [Docket No.: FAA–2017–0990]
West Building Ground Floor at 1200
position lights must be installed such New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
that they consist of a red and a green RIN 2120–AK80 DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
light spaced laterally as far apart as through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Normal and Transport Category
practicable, and installed forward on the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
Rotorcraft Certification
airplane, so that, with the airplane in questions concerning this action,
the normal flying position and with the AGENCY: Federal Aviation contact Sandra Shelley, Aviation Safety
wingtips in the folded position for Administration (FAA), DOT. Engineer, Safety Management Group,
ground operations, the red light is on ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort
the left side and the green light is on the Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222–
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

(NPRM).
right side at approximately the level of 5110; email sandra.shelley@faa.gov.
the wingtips in the takeoff SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
configuration. Each light must be the certification standards of normal
approved and must meet the and transport category helicopters. The Authority for This Rulemaking
requirements of § 25.1385(a) and (d). proposed changes are necessary to The FAA’s authority to issue rules on
The lights must not impair the vision of address modern designs currently used aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the
the flightcrew when the wingtips are in in the rotorcraft industry and would United States Code. Subtitle I, Section
the folded and transient positions. reduce the burden on applicants for 106 describes the authority of the FAA

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Oct 31, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM 01NOP1
50584 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation technology for rotorcraft. The FAA impact to industry would be minimal
Programs, describes in more detail the addresses the changes to technology by since the current material associated
scope of the agency’s authority. issuing reoccurring special conditions, with these rules in Advisory Circular
This rulemaking is promulgated ELOS findings, and MOC issue papers. (AC) 27–1B, Certification of Normal
under the authority described in Special conditions are prescribed under Category Rotorcraft, and AC 29–2C,
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Sections 14 CFR 21.16 when the FAA finds the Certification of Transport Category
44701 and 44704. Under section 44701, applicable airworthiness standards do Rotorcraft,1 already recognizes industry
the FAA is charged with prescribing not contain adequate or appropriate standards and practices.
regulations promoting safe flight of civil safety standards because of a novel or In appendix B to parts 27 and 29, the
aircraft in air commerce by prescribing unusual design feature. The FAA issues reference to Amendment 29–14 in
minimum standards required in the ELOS findings under § 21.21(b)(1) section VIII needs to be removed. By
interest of safety for the design and where a design does not literally comply citing the amendment within the rule,
performance of aircraft. Under section with the airworthiness standards, but appendix B requires updating every
44704, the Administrator issues type compensating factors exist that provide time a relevant part 27 or part 29 rule
certificates for aircraft, aircraft engines, an equivalent level of safety. MOC issue is changed.
propellers, and specified appliances papers document compliance B. National Transportation Safety Board
when the Administrator finds the methodologies that fall outside existing Recommendations
product is properly designed and guidance and policies. These three
manufactured, performs properly, and processes are necessary to address new As a result of incidents involving
meets the regulations and minimum design features for which airworthiness lithium-ion batteries installed on
standards prescribed under section standards are lacking, literal compliance aircraft, the National Transportation
44701(a). This rulemaking is within the with a rule cannot be achieved, or Safety Board (NTSB) issued Safety
scope of these authorities because it alternative methods of compliance are Recommendations A–14–032 through
would promote safety by updating the proposed. In some cases, advancements 036 to the FAA on May 22, 2014.2 The
existing minimum prescribed standards in technology have rendered the NTSB recommended the FAA develop
used during the type certification regulations obsolete. abuse tests to simulate failures observed
These special conditions, ELOS in the incidents investigated and to
process.
findings, and MOC issue papers impact address findings in recent research (A–
I. Overview of Proposed Rule FAA resources and applicants’ 14–032), perform these tests on new
The FAA proposes to revise schedules for obtaining FAA approval of aircraft for certain installations (A–14–
regulations in title 14 Code of Federal their products. By updating the affected 033), develop guidance on acceptable
Regulations (14 CFR) part 27 standards, many special conditions, methods to induce thermal runaway
(Airworthiness Standards: Normal ELOS findings, and MOC issue papers that reliably simulates battery failures
Category Rotorcraft) and part 29 would be unnecessary, thus reducing (A–14–034), review methods of
(Airworthiness Standards: Transport the burden on both the FAA and compliance used to certificate in-service
Category Rotorcraft) related to the industry. We also propose to update a lithium-ion battery aircraft installations
certification of rotorcraft. The proposed few of these rules to correct to ensure that they adequately protect
changes are necessary due to the typographical errors. against adverse effects of a cell thermal
extensive application of advancing Sections 27.1329 and 29.1329 do not runaway (A–14–035), and develop
technologies to rotorcraft. Existing adequately address the latest technology policy to establish a panel of technical
airworthiness standards are inadequate in flight control automation. These experts to advise on compliance and
because they do not address increasing standards adequately addressed the best practices for safely installing new
design complexity. To address these functionality of autopilots for many technology (A–14–036). This proposed
advances, the FAA currently issues years until recently with the rule would incorporate these NTSB
reoccurring special conditions, development of more sophisticated recommendations as they relate to
equivalent level of safety findings functions, especially in normal category rotorcraft into §§ 27.1353 and 29.1353.
(ELOS), and means of compliance helicopters. The rotorcraft autopilot
systems of previous years controlled III. Discussion of the Proposal
(MOC) issue papers. This proposed rule
only altitude, attitude, and heading. The A. AC 27–1B and AC 29–2C Guidance
would address these problem areas by
more advanced autopilot systems also AC 27–1B and AC 29–2C provide
updating those standards that cause
control airspeed, vertical speed, and information on methods of compliance
unnecessary burdens in cost and time to
hover. The current rule is inconsistent with 14 CFR parts 27 and 29, which
both the FAA and the rotorcraft
with FAA-accepted industry standards contain the airworthiness standards for
industry. Compliance with these
and practices. The current rule does not normal and transport category rotorcraft.
proposed regulatory changes would
adequately cover the growing changes in These ACs include methods of
continue to be shown by the same
the marketplace toward increased compliance in the areas of basic design,
testing, analysis, and inspections as in
automation in the primary flight
the current certification process and ground tests, and flight tests. With these
controls.
there would be a reduced burden proposed rules, the FAA is also
Sections 27.1335 and 29.1335 were
through clarification of the safety originally written to address a particular proposing related changes to these ACs.
requirements for the installed systems. flight control concept called ‘‘flight B. Powerplant Instruments (§§ 27.1305
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

II. Background director systems;’’ however, the term and 29.1305)
itself has long been considered a Sections 27.1305 and 29.1305
A. Statement of the Problem standard part of a modern autopilot prescribe the specific required
The FAA is proposing to update parts covered under §§ 27.1329 and 29.1329. powerplant instruments for rotorcraft.
27 and 29 because the regulations were In addition, the text we propose to
originally published in 1964 and remove from §§ 27.1335 and 29.1335 1 http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_
revisions to the airworthiness standards has been added to the proposed Library/.
have not kept pace with advances in §§ 27.1329 and 29.1329 rules. The 2 http://www.ntsb.gov/.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Oct 31, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM 01NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 50585

The current rules specify separate include, for Category A 3 training not compromised when utilizing
indicators for many of these purposes (OEI Training Mode), a feature complex and highly integrated
instruments, including engine manifold to represent a simulated engine failure technology, the FAA is proposing a
pressure and engine revolutions per by reducing power of all engines more structured repeatable failure
minute (r.p.m.) for reciprocating symmetrically. This simulated OEI analysis.
engines, or gas producer speed, gas condition is shown on the engine The proposed change would also
temperature, and torque for turbine instruments by biasing the engine eliminate the distinction between
engines. power, gas temperature, and gas single-engine and multi-engine
producer and free power turbine rotorcraft. Section 27.1309 currently
Traditionally, pilots determine the
tachometers on the primary flight requires applicants to assess the effects
powerplant performance conditions by
display. To avoid confusion, the of failures that may be introduced by
monitoring individual gauges: Gas
proposed § 29.1305(b)(4) would require installed systems and equipment, and
temperature, gas producer speed, and distinguishes that the methods for
torque. Sections 27.1305 and 29.1305 additional annunciations to differentiate
the simulated OEI condition from that of assessing these failures may be different
establish the required powerplant between single and multi-engine
instruments, and §§ 27.1321 and an actual engine failure.
The proposed changes to § 29.1305 rotorcraft. This distinction was
29.1321 require that these instruments envisioned because multi-engine
be easily visible to the pilot. These would permit designs incorporating an
OEI Training Mode. The FAA is not rotorcraft employed complex systems or
instruments measure the performance systems with more severe failure effects.
output of the engines and they proposing changes to § 27.1305 because
14 CFR part 27 Category A rotorcraft are This distinction is now irrelevant since
collectively allow the pilot to current analysis tools for technologies
continuously monitor the condition and approved under appendix C to part 27,
which requires compliance with and associated failure effects do not
health of the engines. consider number of engines as required
§ 29.1305.
Many rotorcraft manufacturers have input.
started to incorporate a synthesized C. Rotorcraft Equipment, Systems, and The proposed rule would clarify the
power indicator (SPI) that provides a Installations (§§ 27.1309, 29.1309, and requirement to perform a proper failure
single indicator of engine performance. Appendix C to Part 27) analysis and also recognize that the
This single value displayed to the pilot Sections 27.1309 and 29.1309 apply severity of failures can vary. Since the
is generally presented as a percentage of generally to all systems on the aircraft current rule was promulgated, the
the nearest engine limit. The that do not otherwise have specific number of failure condition categories
continuously displayed SPI presents the language to analyze the safety aspects of has varied. Current industry standards
calculated value to the flight crew on a system. The proposed changes to and practices recognize five failure
the primary flight displays along with a § 27.1309 would address advances in condition categories: Catastrophic,
caption indicating the nearest engine technology and increases in Hazardous, Major, Minor, and No-Safety
limiting parameter that is being used for performance of normal category Effect. The proposed rule recognizes the
the SPI displayed calculation. rotorcraft that were not envisioned maximum and minimum failure effects
Acceptable designs allow the pilot to when this rule was originally without prescribing the number of
monitor engine performance and trends. promulgated. Manufacturers installed failure effect severity categories. This
Technologies such as an SPI, which complex and highly integrated systems proposed change would also
combine multiple indicators into one, in part 27 rotorcraft certificated for accommodate future changes in
cannot meet the requirements of the instrument flight rules (IFR) under industry failure analysis techniques and
current rules. By allowing means other reflect current certification practices.
appendix B and Category A operations
than dedicated indicators, the proposed Additionally, it would eliminate the
under appendix C. At that time, the
changes would permit designs need to issue recurring special
FAA did not envision complex and
incorporating an SPI or similar conditions and remove the additional
highly integrated systems would be
concepts. The FAA proposes to revise time and cost to industry.
installed in non-IFR and non-Category A The changes proposed for §§ 27.1309
§§ 27.1305(e), (k), (n), and (o) and normal category rotorcraft because
29.1305(a)(5), (11), and (12) to allow and 29.1309 would make the sections
industry was not employing this consistent. These changes would
other means of powerplant indication advanced technology or the technology
for these instruments. Section remove the necessity to reference
did not exist. The analysis methods § 29.1309 in appendix C of part 27.
27.1305(k) would continue to require a used to identify and determine the
tachometer to indicate main rotor speed, Although a specific reference to
effects of system failures required in § 27.1309 would not be added, appendix
but would also require a separate means § 27.1309 are not adequate for today’s
to indicate the r.p.m. of each engine. C of part 27 already requires compliance
complex and highly integrated systems. with all of part 27 for Category A
The FAA also proposes to modify The use of this advanced technology
§ 27.1305(o) by replacing ‘‘turboshaft’’ certification. These proposed changes
resulted in an exponential increase in would not eliminate the requirement to
with ‘‘turbine’’ to be consistent with the number of ways rotorcraft systems
similar wording used throughout parts reassess compliance with § 27.1309 for
can fail and a decrease in the applicants who request Category A
27 and 29. discernibility of such failures. To ensure operations. The FAA proposes to change
For part 29, the FAA proposes to add the reliability of the rotorcraft system is appendix C to delete the reference to
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

§ 29.1305(b)(4) to permit manipulating § 29.1309.
3 In 14 CFR 1.1, Category A, with respect to
the powerplant instruments to simulate The FAA proposes to update
transport category rotorcraft, means multiengine
one engine inoperative (OEI) conditions rotorcraft designed with engine and system § 29.1309 to be consistent with industry
without damaging the engines. Section isolation features specified in Part 29 and utilizing standards and practices for conducting
29.1305 requires unbiased engine scheduled takeoff and landing operations under a failure analysis. These proposed
instrument indications to remain critical engine failure concept which assures
adequate designated surface area and adequate
changes are intended to allow flexibility
available to assure operation within safe performance capability for continued safe flight in in the types of assessments applicants
limits. Several helicopter designs the event of engine failure. may provide for showing compliance.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Oct 31, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM 01NOP1
50586 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules

Section 29.1309 currently requires each system. Since then, systems for F. Electrical Systems and Equipment
applicants to assess the effects of automatic control of flight have evolved. (§ 29.1351) and Energy Storage Systems
failures resulting from installed systems Modern designs include both automatic (§§ 27.1353 and 29.1353)
and equipment. The current rule also pilot and flight director systems and are The FAA proposes changing
identifies differences in the depth of now referred to as automatic flight §§ 27.1353 and 29.1353 to provide a
assessing failures between Category A guidance and control systems. Having general regulation that is not directed at
and Category B 4 rotorcraft. Complex these systems in separate rules that use a particular battery or battery chemistry.
and highly integrated systems were different terminology has resulted in The existing regulations were first
typically installed in part 29 rotorcraft some confusion. The proposed changes written when backup electrical power
certificated for Category A operations.
would remove §§ 27.1335 and 29.1335 was provided solely by a lead acid
Like the distinction between single-
and incorporate the requirements into battery. The regulations were later
engine and multi-engine rotorcraft
§§ 27.1329 and 29.1329. The FAA also amended to add requirements specific
discussed previously, this distinction
proposes to use the term ‘‘automatic to the nickel-cadmium battery
was made because the FAA did not
flight guidance and control systems’’ to chemistry. Recently, batteries have been
envision that complex and highly
address both automatic pilot and flight developed using various lithium
integrated systems would be installed in
director systems, as well as the chemistries. Lead acid, nickel-cadmium,
rotorcraft certificated for Category B
operations. This distinction is now components. and lithium batteries are all energy
irrelevant since current analysis tools storage devices with different
E. Instrument Systems (§ 29.1333 and operational parameters and failure
for technologies and associated failure
Appendix B to Parts 27 and 29) mechanisms. Rather than add specific
effects do not differ between Category A
and Category B. The FAA proposes to lithium battery requirements, which
Currently, § 29.1333(a) requires would necessitate further amendments
add an introductory paragraph and isolating the pilot instrument system
revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to clarify to address future energy storage
from any other operating systems. At the chemistries, the FAA is proposing to
that all equipment, systems, and time the rule was promulgated, these
installations on the rotorcraft must be generalize the regulation to
systems were federated, and connecting accommodate any energy storage
analyzed and to remove the distinction these systems increased the likelihood
between Category A and B. Although system. The proposed regulation would
that a fault in one system would cause be less prescriptive than the existing
the effects of the failures may be
different, the method for conducting the a fault in the pilot instrument system. regulation.
failure analysis is the same regardless of This physical independence between The FAA’s intent with this proposal
the operations evaluated. the pilot system and other operating is that the modified regulation would be
The term ‘‘warning’’ in § 29.1309(c) systems prevented the pilot system’s directly applicable to both lead acid and
and (d) has been interpreted as requiring reliability from being compromised by nickel-cadmium batteries without
a red level alert, when the intent was to other operating systems. With the imposing additional requirements. In
notify the crew of all required adoption of microprocessor technology addition, this generalized approach
annunciations. Therefore, the FAA and the trend towards complex and would allow the FAA to consider
proposes to modify paragraphs (c) and highly integrated systems, the batteries, fuel cells, or any other energy
(d) by removing the terms ‘‘warning’’ requirement for physical independence storage device not yet developed.
and ‘‘probability’’ and replacing them is no longer appropriate. The use of this Certain attributes tied to a specific
with ‘‘annunciation’’ and ‘‘effect’’ technology resulted in an exponential battery chemistry currently found in the
respectively, and adding ‘‘misleading increase in the number of ways regulation would be addressed in AC
data’’ as a standard failure mode. rotorcraft systems can fail and a 27–1B and AC 29–2C. These proposed
The FAA also proposes removing the changes to §§ 27.1353 and 29.1353 are
decrease in the discernibility of such
requirements of § 29.1309(e) and (f) intended to reduce the burden on the
failures. To ensure the reliability of the
dealing specifically with electrical FAA and the rotorcraft industry
pilot system is not compromised when associated with issuing special
systems as they are covered by
utilizing microprocessors or highly conditions and the related issue papers.
§§ 29.1351, 29.1353, 29.1355, and
integrated systems, modern designs Section 29.1353, paragraphs (a) and
29.1357.
allow redundant systems in the (b) would be moved into § 29.1351 as
D. Automatic Flight Guidance and rotorcraft to compare information. paragraphs (e) and (f) respectively.
Control Systems (§§ 27.1329, 27.1335, Rotorcraft cannot utilize current These paragraphs are general
29.1329, and 29.1335) technology, and redundant systems requirements for all electrical systems
The FAA proposes to standardize cannot compare information, when the and equipment installations. This
terminology and combine the pilot instrument system is isolated. change is proposed for consistency
requirements for automatic pilot and The FAA proposes to revise because those requirements are more
flight director systems into one rule. § 29.1333(a) and section VIII(b)(5)(i) of appropriate in § 29.1351. This proposed
Sections 27.1329 and 29.1329 address appendix B to parts 27 and 29 to make change would standardize the
automatic pilot systems while them applicable only to pneumatic requirements of §§ 27.1353 and 29.1353
§§ 27.1335 and 29.1335 address flight and both section titles would be
systems. These proposed changes would
director systems. At the time these rules changed to ‘‘Energy storage systems’’ to
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

allow for the use of modern technology
were promulgated, the functionality of properly reflect the new language.
designs prompted a separate rule for to monitor and display highly integrated
information regarding the rotorcraft that G. Instrument Markings (§§ 27.1545,
4 In 14 CFR 1.1, Category B, with respect to is currently not permitted. The FAA 29.1545, 27.1549, and 29.1549)
transport category rotorcraft, means single-engine or also proposes revising appendix B to The FAA proposes to modify
multiengine rotorcraft which do not fully meet all parts 27 and 29 to remove the
Category A standards. Category B rotorcraft have no
§§ 27.1545(b)(4), 27.1549(b),
guaranteed stay-up ability in the event of engine
amendment level as previously 29.1545(b)(4), and 29.1549(b) by
failure and unscheduled landing is assumed. discussed in section B of the preamble. eliminating the restriction of only using

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Oct 31, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM 01NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 50587

a ‘‘green arc’’ to indicate normal only acceptable method for reduce confusion between part 27 and
operating ranges. The existing rules distinguishing VNE (power-off) from VNE part 29 by using a standard format for
require using a green arc for normal (power-on). The FAA also proposes to the same technical requirements.
operating ranges on airspeed and apply this change to § 29.1545. The FAA proposes to correct a
powerplant instruments. Modern glass typographical error in §§ 29.955 and
H. Control Markings (§§ 27.1555 and
cockpits generally do not contain these 29.1019. When § 29.1305 was updated
29.1555)
green indicators. The philosophy to add a requirement for an oil pressure
utilized by modern cockpit designs is The FAA proposes to modify indicator for pressure-lubricated
the ‘‘dark, quiet cockpit,’’ and only §§ 27.1555(c)(1) and 29.1555(c)(1) to gearboxes, the numbering sequence was
yellow or red is presented to indicate permit more than one method to inform changed when the additional
the aircraft is outside the normal or safe the pilot of the usable fuel system requirement was inserted at paragraph
operating range. The absence of green capacity. The existing rules require (a)(6). The § 29.1305(a)(17) fuel filter
arcs did not meet the requirement of the marking the usable fuel capacity at the contamination warning was moved to
rule. Since the rule was promulgated, fuel quantity indicator. Older, analog paragraph (a)(18), and the
the FAA has determined that if all fuel gauges (many without numbers) § 29.1305(a)(18) turbine engine filter
abnormal conditions are otherwise used a placard to inform the pilot of the contamination warning was moved to
adequately indicated, green markings useful fuel quantity. With modern paragraph (a)(19). However, the
are unnecessary. These accepted design display systems, the location of the fuel reference to the fuel filter contamination
features include the pilot being able to quantity indicator, as well as the fact warning in § 29.955(a)(7) and the
easily interpret (by way of glancing at that the location may change, make it turbine engine filter contamination
the instrument) whether a parameter is impractical to affix a placard next to the warning in § 29.1019(a)(5) were not
in a precautionary range (yellow) or display. In addition, although useful updated to account for the change in
beyond a limit (red). Almost every fuel capacity is commonly included in numbering sequence. This proposed
current rotorcraft design now the rotorcraft flight manual, the change would correct the reference at
incorporates a glass cockpit that proposed alternate method would make §§ 29.955(a)(7) and 29.1019(a)(5).
requires an ELOS finding for the this a requirement to address the lack of Finally, the FAA proposes to correct
absence of green arcs. This proposal continuous display provided by a a typographical error in § 29.977. When
only affects the color utilized for the placard. § 29.977 was updated, it incorrectly
normal operating ranges and does not I. Typographical and Standardizing carried over references to ‘‘airplanes’’
address graduation markings on an Corrections (§§ 27.87, 27.903, 29.955, from an identical part 23 update. The
instrument. 29.977, 29.1019, 29.1517, and 29.1587) proposed change would revise § 29.977
The FAA also proposes to remove the by removing the term ‘‘airplanes’’ and
term ‘‘radial’’ from §§ 27.1545(b)(1), The FAA proposes to correct several
replacing it with the term ‘‘rotorcraft.’’
27.1549(a), 29.1545(b)(1), and typographical errors and to revise
29.1549(a). At the time these rules were certain terminology differences between IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
promulgated, cockpit instruments were part 27 and part 29. First, the FAA
A. Regulatory Evaluation
circular, and therefore the technically- proposes to revise the title of § 27.87 to
correct term ‘‘radial line’’ was used. coincide with the title of § 29.87, which Changes to Federal regulations must
Technological advances have since is the equivalent transport category undergo several economic analyses.
produced linear-scale gauges rendering rotorcraft requirement. The title of First, Executive Order 12866 and
the term ‘‘radial’’ obsolete. The term § 29.87 was changed from ‘‘Limiting Executive Order 13563 direct that each
‘‘line’’ is intended to represent a radial height-speed envelope’’ to ‘‘Height- Federal agency shall propose or adopt a
for round instruments or a line for tape velocity envelope’’ in order to ‘‘agree regulation only upon a reasoned
or other style instruments. with the commonly used term.’’ determination that the benefits of the
The FAA further proposes to replace However, the corresponding title to intended regulation justify its costs.
‘‘arc’’ with ‘‘range’’ in §§ 27.1545(b)(3), § 27.87 was not similarly changed at Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act
27.1545(b)(4), 27.1549(b), 27.1549(c), that time. of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires
27.1549(d), 29.1545(b)(3), 29.1545(b)(4), The FAA also proposes to replace the agencies to analyze the economic
29.1549(b), 29.1549(c), and 29.1549(d). term ‘‘height-speed’’ with the term impact of regulatory changes on small
When these regulations were created, ‘‘height-velocity’’ throughout entities. Third, the Trade Agreements
cockpit instruments were circular. §§ 27.1587, 29.1587, and 29.1517 to be Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies
‘‘Arc’’ is a term that only applies to consistent with the title nomenclature of from setting standards that create
round gauges and not to tape or other §§ 27.87 and 29.87. These proposed unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
style instruments, which are in popular changes are intended to reduce commerce of the United States. In
use today. The FAA intends ‘‘range’’ to confusion between and within parts 27 developing U.S. standards, the Trade
be applied to round, tape, or other style and 29. Act requires agencies to consider
instruments. The FAA also proposes to reformat international standards and, where
Finally, the FAA proposes to move § 27.903(d) so that it is consistent with appropriate, that they be the basis of
the requirement for indicating VNE the format of the § 29.903(e) engine U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded
(power-off) from § 27.1545(b)(2) to restart capability requirement. When the Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
§ 27.1545(b)(1)(iii) and modify it to § 27.903(d) restart capability 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

encompass designs that incorporate a requirements were adopted, the written assessment of the costs, benefits,
means other than a red cross-hatched paragraph structure of the existing and other effects of proposed or final
line. The FAA has previously accepted § 29.903(e) was not used even though rules that include a Federal mandate
designs that utilize a single red line for the technical requirements were likely to result in the expenditure by
VNE (power-on) and VNE (power-off) intended to be identical. The restart State, local, or tribal governments, in the
when not concurrently displayed. capability requirements of § 27.903(d) aggregate, or by the private sector, of
Additionally, a red and white cross- are not being changed in this proposal. $100 million or more annually (adjusted
hatched ‘‘barber pole’’ may not be the These proposed changes are intended to for inflation with base year of 1995).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Oct 31, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM 01NOP1
50588 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules

This portion of the preamble 2. Normal Category Rotorcraft 6. Electrical Systems and Equipment
summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the Equipment, Systems, and Installations (§ 29.1351) and Energy Storage Systems
economic impacts of this proposed rule. (§ 27.1309 and Appendix C to Part 27) (§§ 27.1353 and 29.1353)
Department of Transportation Order The FAA clarifies the requirement to The FAA proposed changes are less
DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and perform proper failure analysis that prescriptive and performance-based to
procedures for simplification, analysis, would adopt the current industry accommodate different energy storage
and review of regulations. If the practice of five failure category systems. The modified regulation would
expected cost impact is so minimal that conditions. Additionally, the FAA be directly applicable to both lead acid
a proposed or final rule does not eliminates the distinction between and nickel-cadmium batteries without
warrant a full evaluation, this order single-engine and multi-engine imposing additional requirements. The
permits that a statement to that effect rotorcraft as this distinction is irrelevant change would allow the FAA to keep up
because current analysis tools for with changes in technology. Cost to the
and the basis for it to be included in the
technologies and associated failure industry should be minimal as
preamble if a full regulatory evaluation
effects no longer consider the number of performance based requirements allow
of the cost and benefits is not prepared. engines. As these are current industry for minimal cost options to meet the
Such a determination has been made for practice, the FAA asserts that the cost current standard.
this proposed rule. The reasoning for associated with these changes is
this determination follows: 7. Instrument Markings (§§ 27.1545,
minimal.
29.1545, 27.1549, and 29.1549)
The FAA proposes to revise 3. Transport Category Rotorcraft
regulations in 14 CFR part 27 The proposed rule would remove the
Equipment, Systems, and Installation restrictive requirement for some
(Airworthiness Standards: Normal (§ 29.1309)
Category Rotorcraft) and part 29 instrument markings to allow
This section would be updated to be alternative means of compliance, i.e.—
(Airworthiness Standards: Transport
consistent with industry standards and green arc, radial red line, etc. Allowing
Category Rotorcraft) related to the
practices for conducting failure analysis. for another means of compliance is
certification of rotorcraft. The proposed The proposed rule would clarify the voluntary and would be either a
changes are necessary due to advancing requirement to perform a proper failure minimal cost and possibly cost relieving
technologies, which address a lack of analysis and also recognize that the for manufactures that elect to outfit the
adequate airworthiness standards severity of failures can vary. The FAA rotorcraft with different instrument
resulting from increasing design asserts that performing a proper failure markings.
complexity. As a result, many regulatory analysis would be minimal cost as it
sections are subject to reoccurring 8. Control Markings (§§ 27.1555 and
would codify current industry practices.
special conditions, ELOS, and MOC 29.1555)
Additionally, this section would be
issue papers. This proposed rulemaking changed to accommodate future changes The proposed rule would permit more
would address these problem areas by in industry failure analysis techniques than one method to inform the pilot of
updating the rules that cause and reflects current certification the usable fuel system capacity.
unnecessary burdens in cost and time to practices. Moving to a performance However, alternative method must
both the FAA and the rotorcraft based standard would reduce the need address the lack of continuous display.
industry. The compliance cost to to issue recurring special conditions and Changes to this section allows for more
industry of these proposed regulation potentially save manufactures that than one means of compliance. Offering
changes would be minimal. The choose to use an alternative means of alternative means of compliance allows
justification for minimal cost by compliance. Thus, these proposed industry to meet the requirement with
changes would impose minimal cost. the least costly option that can be cost
regulation is identified in sections 1
relieving or the existing method of
through 9 below. 4. Automatic Flight Guidance and
compliance, but either method would be
Control Systems (§§ 27.1329, 27.1335,
1. Powerplant Instruments (§§ 27.1305 no more than minimal cost.
29.1329, and 29.1335)
and 29.1305) 9. Typographical and Standardizing
The FAA proposes to standardize
Changes to this section would allow terminology and combine the Corrections (§§ 27.87, 27.903, 29.955,
for other means of compliance for requirements for automatic pilot and 29.977, 29.1019, 29.1517, and 29.1587)
powerplant instrument indicators. Other flight director systems into one rule. Costs for proposed changes to this
means of compliance are voluntary and Modern designs include both automatic section are minimal as these are strictly
do not impose any new cost but could pilot and flight director systems and are typographical or standardizing
be cost relieving for those that choose to now referred to as automatic flight corrections.
voluntarily comply. Additionally, for guidance and control systems. Changes The FAA has, therefore, determined
§ 29.1305, the FAA would permit to this section would match current that this proposed rule is not a
industry practices at a minimal cost. ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as
manipulating the powerplant
defined in section 3(f) of Executive
instruments to simulate OEI conditions 5. Instrument Systems (§ 29.1333 and
Order 12866, and is not ‘‘significant’’ as
without damaging the engines. Appendix B to Parts 27 and 29)
defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies
However, helicopters with OEI Training The FAA proposed change would
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

and Procedures. The FAA requests
Mode would require additional allow for the use of more modern comments with supporting justification
indicators to differentiate the OEI integrated systems to monitor and about the FAA determination of
condition from actual engine failure, but display highly integrated information minimal cost impact.
these indicators are already being regarding the rotorcraft. This section
installed in current rotorcraft. The FAA would impose minimal cost as the B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
believes this proposed change would updates reflect modern industry The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
impose minimal new cost to industry, as practices of integrating instrument (Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a
these are current industry practice. systems. principle of regulatory issuance that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Oct 31, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM 01NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 50589

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with from establishing standards or engaging G. Environmental Analysis
the objectives of the rule and of in related activities that create FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA
applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and unnecessary obstacles to the foreign actions that are categorically excluded
informational requirements to the scale commerce of the United States. from preparation of an environmental
of the businesses, organizations, and Pursuant to these Acts, the assessment or environmental impact
governmental jurisdictions subject to establishment of standards is not statement under the National
regulation. To achieve this principle, considered an unnecessary obstacle to Environmental Policy Act in the
agencies are required to solicit and the foreign commerce of the United absence of extraordinary circumstances.
consider flexible regulatory proposals States, so long as the standard has a The FAA has determined this
and to explain the rationale for their legitimate domestic objective, such as rulemaking action qualifies for the
actions to assure that such proposals are the protection of safety, and does not categorical exclusion identified in
given serious consideration.’’ The RFA operate in a manner that excludes paragraph 5–6.6.f and involves no
covers a wide-range of small entities, imports that meet this objective. The extraordinary circumstances.
including small businesses, not-for- statute also requires consideration of
profit organizations, and small V. Executive Order Determinations
international standards and, where
governmental jurisdictions. appropriate, that they be the basis for A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Agencies must perform a review to U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed
determine whether a rule will have a The FAA has analyzed this proposed
the potential effect of this proposed rule rule under the principles and criteria of
significant economic impact on a and determined that the potential
substantial number of small entities. If Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The
benefits are available to both domestic agency has determined that this action
the agency determines that it will, the
and international firms which would would not have a substantial direct
agency must prepare a regulatory
either have no affect or a positive effect effect on the States, or the relationship
flexibility analysis as described in the
on international trade. between the Federal Government and
RFA. However, if an agency determines
that a rule is not expected to have a D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment the States, or on the distribution of
significant economic impact on a power and responsibilities among the
substantial number of small entities, Title II of the Unfunded Mandates various levels of government, and,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) therefore, would not have Federalism
the head of the agency may so certify requires each Federal agency to prepare implications.
and a regulatory flexibility analysis is a written statement assessing the effects B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations
not required. The certification must of any Federal mandate in a proposed or That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
include a statement providing the final agency rule that may result in an Distribution, or Use
factual basis for this determination, and expenditure of $100 million or more (in
1995 dollars) in any one year by State, The FAA analyzed this proposed rule
the reasoning should be clear.
The FAA proposes to amend the under Executive Order 13211, Actions
local, and tribal governments, in the
certification standards of normal and Concerning Regulations that
aggregate, or by the private sector; such
transport category helicopters. The Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant
proposed changes reflect modern Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The
regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently
designs currently used in the rotorcraft agency has determined that it would not
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155
industry and would reduce the burden be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under
million in lieu of $100 million. This
on applicants for certification of new the executive order and would not be
proposed rule does not contain such a
rotorcraft designs. The proposed likely to have a significant adverse effect
mandate; therefore, the requirements of
changes would reduce or eliminate the on the supply, distribution, or use of
Title II of the Act do not apply.
need for certain special conditions energy.
currently required to obtain certification E. Paperwork Reduction Act VI. Additional Information
of modern rotorcraft. This proposed rule The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 A. Comments Invited
would merely revise and clarify FAA (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the
rulemaking procedures; the expected The FAA invites interested persons to
FAA consider the impact of paperwork participate in this rulemaking by
outcome will have only a minimal cost and other information collection
impact on any small entity affected by submitting written comments, data, or
burdens imposed on the public. The views. The agency also invites
this rulemaking action. FAA has determined that there would
If an agency determines that a comments relating to the economic,
be no new requirement for information environmental, energy, or federalism
rulemaking will not result in a
collection associated with this proposed impacts that might result from adopting
significant economic impact on a
rule. the proposals in this document. The
substantial number of small entities, the
head of the agency may so certify under F. International Compatibility and most helpful comments reference a
section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as Cooperation specific portion of the proposal, explain
provided in section 605(b), the head of the reason for any recommended
the FAA certifies that this rulemaking In keeping with U.S. obligations change, and include supporting data. To
will not result in a significant economic under the Convention on International ensure the docket does not contain
Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to duplicate comments, commenters
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

impact on a substantial number of small
entities. conform to International Civil Aviation should send only one copy of written
Organization (ICAO) Standards and comments, or if comments are filed
C. International Trade Impact Recommended Practices to the electronically, commenters should
Assessment maximum extent practicable. The FAA submit only one time.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 has determined that there are no ICAO The FAA will file in the docket all
(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the Standards and Recommended Practices comments it receives, as well as a report
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. that correspond to these proposed summarizing each substantive public
L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies regulations. contact with FAA personnel concerning

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Oct 31, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM 01NOP1
50590 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting List of Subjects engine, if a torque limitation is
on this proposal, the FAA will consider established for that engine under
14 CFR Part 27
all comments it receives on or before the § 27.1521(e).
closing date for comments. The FAA Aircraft, Aviation safety. * * * * *
will consider comments filed after the 14 CFR Part 29 ■ 5. Revise § 27.1309 to read as follows:
comment period has closed if it is
possible to do so without incurring Aircraft, Aviation safety. § 27.1309 Equipment, systems, and
expense or delay. The agency may installations.
The Proposed Amendment
change this proposal in light of the The equipment, systems, and
In consideration of the foregoing, the installations whose functioning is
comments it receives.
Federal Aviation Administration required by this subchapter must be
Proprietary or Confidential Business proposes to amend chapter I of title 14,
Information: Commenters should not designed and installed to ensure that
Code of Federal Regulations as follows: they perform their intended functions
file proprietary or confidential business
information in the docket. Such PART 27—AIRWORTHINESS under any foreseeable operating
information must be sent or delivered STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY condition. For any item of equipment or
directly to the person identified in the ROTORCRAFT system whose failure has not been
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT specifically addressed by another
section of this document, and marked as ■ 1. The authority citation for part 27 requirement in this chapter, the
proprietary or confidential. If submitting continues to read as follows: following requirements also apply:
information on a disk or CD ROM, mark Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–
(a) The design of each item of
the outside of the disk or CD ROM, and 44702, 44704. equipment, system, and installation
identify electronically within the disk or must be analyzed separately and in
■ 2. Amend § 27.87 by revising the relation to other rotorcraft systems and
CD ROM the specific information that is
section heading and paragraph (a) installations to determine and identify
proprietary or confidential.
introductory text to read as follows: any failure that would affect the
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is
aware of proprietary information filed § 27.87 Height-velocity envelope. capability of the rotorcraft or the ability
with a comment, the agency does not (a) If there is any combination of of the crew to perform their duties in all
place it in the docket. It is held in a height and forward speed (including operating conditions.
separate file to which the public does hover) under which a safe landing (b) Each item of equipment, system,
not have access, and the FAA places a cannot be made under the applicable and installation must be designed and
note in the docket that it has received power failure condition in paragraph (b) installed so that:
it. If the FAA receives a request to of this section, a limiting height-velocity (1) The occurrence of any catastrophic
examine or copy this information, it envelope must be established (including failure condition is extremely
treats it as any other request under the all pertinent information) for that improbable;
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. condition, throughout the ranges of— (2) The occurrence of any minor
552). The FAA processes such a request failure condition is no more than
* * * * * probable; and
under Department of Transportation ■ 3. Amend § 27.903 by revising
procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. (3) For the occurrence of any other
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
failure condition, the probability of the
B. Availability of Rulemaking § 27.903 Engines. failure condition must be inversely
Documents proportional to its consequences.
* * * * *
An electronic copy of rulemaking (d) Restart capability. (1) A means to (c) A means to alert the crew in the
documents may be obtained from the restart any engine in flight must be event of a failure must be provided
Internet by— provided. when an unsafe system operating
(2) Except for the in-flight shutdown condition exists to enable them to take
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking
of all engines, engine restart capability corrective action. Systems, controls, and
Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
must be demonstrated throughout a associated monitoring and crew alerting
2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and means must be designed to minimize
flight envelope for the rotorcraft.
Policies Web page at http:// crew errors that could create additional
(3) Following the in-flight shutdown
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or hazards.
of all engines, in-flight engine restart
3. Accessing the Government Printing capability must be provided. (d) Compliance with the requirements
Office’s Web page at http:// ■ 4. Amend § 27.1305 by revising of this section must be shown by
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. paragraphs (e), (k) introductory text, (n), analysis and, where necessary, by
Copies may also be obtained by and (o) to read as follows: ground, flight, or simulator tests. The
sending a request to the Federal analysis must account for:
Aviation Administration, Office of § 27.1305 Powerplant instruments. (1) Possible modes of failure,
Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence * * * * * including malfunctions and misleading
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or (e) A means to indicate manifold data and input from external sources;
by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters pressure for each altitude engine. (2) The effect of multiple failures and
must identify the docket number of this * * * * * latent failures;
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

rulemaking. (k) A means to indicate the r.p.m. of (3) The resulting effects on the
All documents the FAA considered in each engine and at least one tachometer, rotorcraft and occupants, considering
developing this proposed rule, as applicable, for: the stage of flight and operating
including economic analyses and * * * * * conditions; and
technical reports, may be accessed from (n) A means to indicate the gas (4) The crew warning cues and the
the Internet through the Federal temperature for each turbine engine. corrective action required.
eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (o) A means to enable the pilot to ■ 6. Amend § 27.1329 by revising the
(1) above. determine the torque of each turbine section heading, adding introductory

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Oct 31, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM 01NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 50591

text, and revising paragraphs (a), (d), hazardous effect on rotorcraft structure, § 27.1587 Performance information.
and (e) to read as follows: equipment, or systems necessary for (a) * * *
continued safe flight and landing. (1) Enough information to determine
§ 27.1329 Automatic flight guidance and (e) Energy storage system installations
control system.
the limiting height-velocity envelope.
required for continued safe flight and * * * * *
For the purpose of this subpart, an landing of the rotorcraft must have ■ 13. Amend appendix B to part 27 by
automatic flight guidance and control monitoring features and a means to
system may consist of an autopilot, revising paragraphs VIII introductory
indicate to the pilot the status of all text and VIII(b)(5)(i) to read as follows:
flight director, or a component that critical system parameters.
interacts with stability augmentation or ■ 9. Amend § 27.1545 by revising Appendix B to Part 27—Airworthiness
trim. paragraph (b) to read as follows: Criteria for Helicopter Instrument
(a) Each automatic flight guidance and Flight
control system must be designed so that § 27.1545 Airspeed indicator.
* * * * *
it: * * * * *
(b) The following markings must be VIII. Equipment, systems, and
(1) Can be overpowered by the pilot
made: installation. The basic equipment and
to allow control of the rotorcraft;
(2) Provides a means to disengage the (1) A red line— installation must comply with
system by the pilot to prevent it from (i) For rotorcraft other than §§ 29.1303, 29.1431, and 29.1433, with
interfering with the control of the helicopters, at VNE. the following exceptions and additions:
rotorcraft; and (ii) For helicopters, at VNE (power-on). * * * * *
(3) Provides a means to indicate to the (iii) For helicopters, at VNE (power- (b) * * *
flight crew its current mode of off). If VNE (power-off) is less than VNE (5) * * *
operation. (power-on) and both are simultaneously (i) For pneumatic systems, only the
Selector switch position is not displayed, the red line at VNE (power- required flight instruments for the first
acceptable as a means of indication. off) must be clearly distinguishable from pilot may be connected to that operating
the red line at VNE (power-on). system;
* * * * *
(2) [Reserved] * * * * *
(d) The system must be designed so (3) For the caution range, a yellow
that, within the range of adjustment range. Appendix C to Part 27 [Amended]
available to the pilot, it cannot produce (4) For the normal operating range, a
hazardous loads on the rotorcraft, or ■ 14. In appendix C to part 27, amend
green or unmarked range. paragraph C27.2 by removing the entry
create hazardous deviations in the flight
* * * * * ‘‘29.1309(b)(2) (i) and (d)-Equipment,
path, under any flight condition ■ 10. Amend § 27.1549 by revising
appropriate to its use or in the event of systems, and installations.’’
paragraphs (a) through (d) to read as
a malfunction. follows: PART 29—AIRWORTHINESS
(e) If the automatic flight guidance
STANDARDS: TRANSPORT
and control system integrates signals § 27.1549 Powerplant instruments.
CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
from auxiliary controls or furnishes * * * * *
signals for operation of other (a) Each maximum and, if applicable, ■ 15. The authority citation for part 29
equipment, there must be a means to minimum safe operating limit must be continues to read as follows:
prevent improper operation. marked with a red line; Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113,
* * * * * (b) Each normal operating range must 44701–44702, 44704.
be marked as a green or unmarked
§ 27.1335 [Removed] range; ■ 16. Amend § 29.955 by revising
■ 7. Remove § 27.1335. (c) Each takeoff and precautionary paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows:
■ 8. Revise § 27.1353 to read as follows: range must be marked with a yellow § 29.955 Fuel flow.
range or yellow line; and
§ 27.1353 Energy storage systems. (d) Each engine or propeller range that (a) * * *
Energy storage systems must be (7) The fuel filter required by § 29.997
is restricted because of excessive
designed and installed as follows: is blocked to the degree necessary to
vibration stresses must be marked with
(a) Energy storage systems must simulate the accumulation of fuel
red ranges or red lines.
provide automatic protective features contamination required to activate the
* * * * * indicator required by § 29.1305(a)(18).
for any conditions that could prevent ■ 11. Amend § 27.1555 by revising
continued safe flight and landing. paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: * * * * *
(b) Energy storage systems must not ■ 17. Amend § 29.977 by revising
emit any explosive or toxic gases, § 27.1555 Control markings. paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to read as
smoke, or fluids except through * * * * * follows:
designed venting provisions and must (c) * * *
§ 29.977 Fuel tank outlet.
not accumulate in hazardous quantities (1) For fuel systems having no selector
within the rotorcraft. controls, the usable fuel capacity of the (a) * * *
(c) Corrosive fluids or gases that system must be indicated at the fuel (1) For reciprocating engine powered
escape from the system must not quantity indicator unless it is: rotorcraft, have 8 to 16 meshes per inch;
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

damage surrounding structures, adjacent (i) Provided by another system or and
equipment, or systems necessary for equipment readily accessible to the (2) For turbine engine powered
continued safe flight and landing. pilot; and rotorcraft, prevent the passage of any
(d) The maximum amount of heat that (ii) Contained in the limitations object that could restrict fuel flow or
can be generated during any operation section of the rotorcraft flight manual. damage any fuel system component.
or under any failure condition of the * * * * * * * * * *
energy storage system or its individual ■ 12. Amend § 27.1587 by revising ■ 18. Amend § 29.1019 by revising
components must not result in any paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Oct 31, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM 01NOP1
50592 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules

§ 29.1019 Oil strainer or filter. failure condition must be inversely ■ 22. Amend § 29.1333 by revising
(a) * * * proportional to its consequences. paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(5) An oil strainer or filter that has no (c) A means to alert the crew in the
event of a failure must be provided § 29.1333 Instrument systems.
bypass, except one that is installed at an
oil tank outlet, must have a means to when an unsafe system operating * * * * *
connect it to the warning system condition exists and to enable them to (a) For pneumatic systems, only the
required in § 29.1305(a)(19). take corrective action. Systems, required flight instruments for the first
* * * * * controls, and associated monitoring and pilot may be connected to that operating
■ 19. Amend § 29.1305 by revising crew alerting means must be designed to system.
paragraphs (a)(5), (11), and (12) and minimize crew errors that could create * * * * *
adding (b)(4) to read as follows: additional hazards.
(d) Compliance with the requirements § 29.1335 [Removed]
§ 29.1305 Powerplant instruments. of this section must be shown by ■ 23. Remove § 29.1335.
(a) * * * analysis and, where necessary, by ■ 24. Amend § 29.1351 by adding
(5) A means to indicate manifold ground, flight, or simulator tests. The paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:
pressure for each reciprocating engine of analysis must account for:
the altitude type; (1) Possible modes of failure, § 29.1351 General.
* * * * * including malfunctions and misleading * * * * *
(11) A means to indicate the gas data and input from external sources; (e) Electrical equipment, controls, and
(2) The effect of multiple failures and wiring must be installed so that
temperature for each turbine engine;
latent failures; operation of any one unit or system of
(12) A means to indicate the gas
(3) The resulting effects on the
producer speed for each turbine engine; units will not adversely affect the
rotorcraft and occupants, considering
* * * * * simultaneous operation of any other
the stage of flight and operating
(b) * * * electrical unit or system essential to safe
conditions; and
(4) For each Category A rotorcraft for operation.
(4) The crew warning cues and the
which OEI Training Mode is requested, corrective action required. (f) Cables must be grouped, routed,
a means must be provided to indicate to ■ 21. Amend § 29.1329 by revising the and spaced so that damage to essential
the pilot the simulation of an engine section heading, adding introductory circuits will be minimized if there are
failure, the annunciation of that text, and revising paragraphs (a), (d), faults in heavy current-carrying cables.
simulation, and a representation of the and (e) to read as follows: * * * * *
OEI power being provided. ■ 25. Revise § 29.1353 to read as
§ 29.1329 Automatic flight guidance and
* * * * * follows:
control system.
■ 20. Revise § 29.1309 to read as
follows: For the purpose of this subpart, an § 29.1353 Energy storage systems.
automatic flight guidance and control Energy storage systems must be
§ 29.1309 Equipment, systems, and system may consist of an autopilot, designed and installed as follows:
installations. flight director, or a component that (a) Energy storage systems must
The equipment, systems, and interacts with stability augmentation or provide automatic protective features
installations whose functioning is trim. for any conditions that could prevent
required by this subchapter must be (a) Each automatic flight guidance and
continued safe flight and landing.
designed and installed to ensure that control system must be designed so that
it: (b) Energy storage systems must not
they perform their intended functions
(1) Can be overpowered by the pilot emit any explosive or toxic gases,
under any foreseeable operating
to allow control of the rotorcraft; smoke, or fluids except through
condition. For any item of equipment or
(2) Provides a means to disengage the designed venting provisions and must
system whose failure has not been
system by the pilot to prevent it from not accumulate in hazardous quantities
specifically addressed by another
interfering with the control of the within the rotorcraft.
requirement in this chapter, the
following requirements also apply: rotorcraft; and (c) Corrosive fluids or gases that
(a) The design of each item of (3) Provides a means to indicate to the escape from the system must not
equipment, system, and installation flight crew its current mode of damage surrounding structures, adjacent
must be analyzed separately and in operation. Selector switch position is equipment, or systems necessary for
relation to other rotorcraft systems and not acceptable as a means of indication. continued safe flight and landing.
installations to determine and identify * * * * * (d) The maximum amount of heat that
any failure that would affect the (d) The system must be designed so can be generated during any operation
capability of the rotorcraft or the ability that, within the range of adjustment or under any failure condition of the
of the crew to perform their duties in all available to the pilot, it cannot produce energy storage system or its individual
operating conditions. hazardous loads on the rotorcraft, or components must not result in any
(b) Each item of equipment, system, create hazardous deviations in the flight hazardous effect on rotorcraft structure,
and installation must be designed and path, under any flight condition equipment, or systems necessary for
installed so that: appropriate to its use or in the event of continued safe flight and landing.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

(1) The occurrence of any catastrophic a malfunction. (e) Energy storage system installations
failure condition is extremely (e) If the automatic flight guidance required for continued safe flight and
improbable; and control system integrates signals landing of the rotorcraft must have
(2) The occurrence of any minor from auxiliary controls or furnishes monitoring features and a means to
failure condition is no more than signals for operation of other indicate to the pilot the status of all
probable; and equipment, there must be a means to critical system parameters.
(3) For the occurrence of any other prevent improper operation. ■ 26. Amend § 29.1517 by revising the
failure condition, the probability of the * * * * * section heading to read as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Oct 31, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM 01NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 50593

§ 29.1517 Limiting height-velocity (6) The height-velocity envelope ADDRESSES: Send comments on this
envelope. except for rotorcraft incorporating this proposal to: U.S. Department of
* * * * * as an operating limitation; Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200
■ 27. Amend § 29.1545 by revising * * * * * New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg.
paragraph (b) to read as follows: ■ 31. Amend appendix B to part 29 by Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140,
revising paragraphs VIII introductory Washington, DC 20590; Telephone:
§ 29.1545 Airspeed indicator.
text and VIII(b)(5)(i) to read as follows: (202) 366–9826. You must identify the
* * * * * Docket No. FAA–2017–0848; Airspace
(b) The following markings must be Appendix B to Part 29—Airworthiness Docket No. 13–ANE–2, at the beginning
made: Criteria for Helicopter Instrument of your comments. You may also submit
(1) A red line: Flight and review received comments through
(i) For rotorcraft other than * * * * * the Internet at http://
helicopters, at VNE. VIII. Equipment, systems, and www.regulations.gov. You may review
(ii) For helicopters, at a VNE (power- installation. The basic equipment and the public docket containing the
on). installation must comply with proposal, any comments received, and
(iii) For helicopters, at VNE (power- §§ 29.1303, 29.1431, and 29.1433, with any final disposition in person in the
off). If VNE (power-off) is less than VNE Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and
the following exceptions and additions:
(power-on) and both are simultaneously 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
displayed, the red line at VNE (power- * * * * *
(b) * * * except federal holidays.
off) must be clearly distinguishable from FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace
the red line at VNE (power-on). (5) * * *
(i) For pneumatic systems, only the Designations and Reporting Points, and
(2) [Reserved] subsequent amendments can be viewed
(3) For the caution range, a yellow required flight instruments for the first
pilot may be connected to that operating on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_
range. traffic/publications/. For further
(4) For the normal operating range, a system;
information, you can contact the
green or unmarked range. * * * * *
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation
* * * * * Issued under authority provided by Administration, 800 Independence
■ 28. Amend § 29.1549 by revising (Consult AGC) 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
paragraphs (a) through (d) to read as 44703 in Washington, DC, on October 19,
telephone: (202) 267–8783. The Order is
follows: 2017.
also available for inspection at the
David W. Hempe,
§ 29.1549 Powerplant instruments. National Archives and Records
Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Administration (NARA). For
* * * * * Operations, Aircraft Certification Service.
information on the availability of FAA
(a) Each maximum and, if applicable, [FR Doc. 2017–23360 Filed 10–31–17; 8:45 am] Order 7400.11B at NARA, call (202)
minimum safe operating limit must be BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 741–6030, or go to https://www.archives
marked with a red line;
.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-
(b) Each normal operating range must
locations.html.
be marked as a green or unmarked DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace
range;
Federal Aviation Administration Designations and Reporting Points, is
(c) Each takeoff and precautionary
published yearly and effective on
range must be marked with a yellow
14 CFR Part 71 September 15.
range or yellow line;
(d) Each engine or propeller range that FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
[Docket No. FAA–2017–0848; Airspace Fornito, Operations Support Group,
is restricted because of excessive Docket No. 13–ANE–2]
vibration stresses must be marked with Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
red ranges or red lines; and Proposed Amendment of Class E Administration, P.O. Box 20636,
* * * * * Airspace, Berlin, NH Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404)
■ 29. Amend § 29.1555 by revising
305–6364.
paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: AGENCY: Federal Aviation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Administration (FAA), DOT.
§ 29.1555 Control markings. Authority for This Rulemaking
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
* * * * * (NPRM). The FAA’s authority to issue rules
(c) * * * regarding aviation safety is found in
(1) For fuel systems having no selector SUMMARY: This action proposes to Title 49 of the United States Code.
controls, the usable fuel capacity of the amend Class E airspace at Berlin, NH, Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the
system must be indicated at the fuel due to the addition of a localizer authority of the FAA Administrator.
quantity indicator unless it is: performance with vertical guidance Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
(i) Provided by another system or function (LPV) instrument procedure to describes in more detail the scope of the
equipment readily accessible to the runway 18 being created for Berlin agency’s authority. This rulemaking is
pilot; and Regional Airport (formerly Berlin promulgated under the authority
(ii) Contained in the limitations Municipal Airport). This action also described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS

section of the rotorcraft flight manual. would update the geographic Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
* * * * * coordinates of the airport to coincide section, the FAA is charged with
■ 30. Amend § 29.1587 by revising
with the FAA’s aeronautical database, prescribing regulations to assign the use
paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows: and would enhance the safety and of airspace necessary to ensure the
management of instrument flight rules safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
§ 29.1587 Performance information. operations (IFR) at the airport. airspace. This regulation is within the
* * * * * DATES: Comments must be received on scope of that authority as it would
(b) * * * or before December 18, 2017. amend Class E airspace at Berlin

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Oct 31, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01NOP1.SGM 01NOP1
Document Created: 2017-11-01 02:02:44
Document Modified: 2017-11-01 02:02:44
Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
Dates		Send comments on or before January 30, 2018.
Contact		For questions concerning this action, contact Sandra Shelley, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]
FR Citation		82 FR 50583
RIN Number		2120-AK80
CFR Citation		14 CFR 27 14 CFR 29
CFR Associated		Aircraft and Aviation Safety
82 FR 50583 - Normal and Transport Category Rotorcraft Certification

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFederal Aviation Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 210 (November 1, 2017)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
