83 FR 9419 - Rotorcraft Pilot Compartment View

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 44 (March 6, 2018)

Page Range		9419-9423
FR Document		2018-04547

The FAA is revising its rules for pilot compartment view to allow ground tests to demonstrate compliance for night operations. The requirement for night flight testing to demonstrate compliance is not necessary in every case. The revision will relieve the burden of performing a night flight test under certain conditions.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2018)

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9419-9423]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04547]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

[Docket No.: FAA-2016-9275; Amdt. No(s). 27-50, 29-57]
RIN 2120-AK91

Rotorcraft Pilot Compartment View

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising its rules for pilot compartment view to
allow

[[Page 9420]]

ground tests to demonstrate compliance for night operations. The
requirement for night flight testing to demonstrate compliance is not
necessary in every case. The revision will relieve the burden of
performing a night flight test under certain conditions.

DATES: Effective May 7, 2018.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How
To Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Clark Davenport, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety
Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5151; email
Clark.Davenport@faa.gov.

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 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 regulation is within the scope of these authorities because it
promotes safety by updating the existing minimum prescribed standards
used during the type certification process to address an equivalent
method of showing compliance.

I. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

The FAA's rules on airworthiness standards for the pilot
compartment in rotorcraft and the requirements for each pilot's view
from that compartment are located in parts 27 and 29 of title 14 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Specifically, Sec. Sec.
27.773(a) and 29.773(a) require that each pilot compartment must be
free of glare and reflection that could interfere with the pilot's
view. Sections 27.773(b) and 29.773(b) require a flight test to show
compliance with paragraph (a) of their respective sections if
certification for night operations is requested. While this requirement
applies to all applicants for rotorcraft installations that may affect
the pilot's ability to see outside the aircraft, the FAA finds that a
flight test may not be the only means available to show compliance for
some modifications. The purpose of the internal lighting tests is to
determine whether the lighting creates glare and reflections within the
cockpit that could interfere with the pilot's view outside of the
aircraft.
The FAA has conducted rotorcraft ground and flight internal
lighting tests over the past 15 years where all external lighting was
blocked from entering the cockpit on the ground evaluation and then
conducted the follow-on night flight tests. They found that the ground
test results were the same as the flight tests. Based on this
experience, the FAA concluded that the two tests will provide the same
results. The FAA has determined that creating an environment where
external light is blocked from entering the cockpit or where the
rotorcraft is placed in a darkened hangar or paint booth, provides the
same environment as a night flight test would for cockpit lighting
evaluations. The FAA has concluded that a ground test provides the same
level of safety and that the current requirements in Sec. Sec. 27.773
and 29.773 for a night flight test are imposing an unnecessary economic
burden on applicants for certification for night operations.

B. Summary of the NPRM

On October 17, 2016, the FAA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), ``Rotorcraft Pilot Compartment View'' (81 FR 71412).
The FAA proposed to allow a ground test as an alternative to a night
flight test in certain cases to show compliance for night operations.
The FAA included two Draft Advisory Circulars, (AC) 27-1B,
Certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft and AC 29-2C, Certification
of Transport Category Rotorcraft, setting forth the conditions under
which a ground test would be acceptable and an acceptable means of
compliance for the ground test.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The original comment period closed on November 16, 2016. However,
the FAA did not post the associated draft advisory circulars (AC) for
public display until November 9, 2016. As a result, the FAA reopened
the comment period (81 FR 83744) until December 13, 2016.

II. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

The FAA received comments from three aviation companies (Aviation
Specialists Unlimited, Inc., Garmin International, and The Boeing
Company) and three individuals. Two of the aviation companies and an
individual supported the proposed rule. The remaining commenters
supported the rule but suggested changes, which are discussed below.

A. Ground Test Criteria

An individual requested the FAA clearly define when a ground test
can and cannot be performed and address factors such as the amount of
interior light emissions, exterior light emissions, color of light
emissions, and focal point of light intensity.
The FAA notes that Advisory Circular (AC) 27-1B, Certification of
Normal Category Rotorcraft and AC 29-2C, Certification of Transport
Category Rotorcraft address the individual's comments. AC 27-1B and AC
29-2C already provide qualitative general guidance to determine
appropriate testing methods.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Advisory Circular (AC) 27-1B and AC 29-2C will be posted in
Docket No. FAA-2016-9275.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Validation of Ground Testing

An individual requested the FAA conduct tests to analyze specific
proficiencies and deficiencies of simulated night ground testing.
Alternatively, if there is already empirical and observational evidence
that proves the safety factors in ground testing, the commenter
requested this be identified in the final rule.
The FAA's determination that a ground test provides the same level
of safety is based on the FAA's experience with cockpit lighting
evaluations for rotorcraft certification projects. The FAA found the
two tests had the same results.

C. Requirements for Night Testing

Two individuals requested that night testing account for various
lighting scenarios. One of these individuals requested the FAA conduct
tests to ensure the accuracy of each ground test simulation using both
interior and exterior lighting effects on the rotorcraft

[[Page 9421]]

windshield and visibility. Another individual requested that testing
account for different outside lighting scenarios through multiple
ground tests, in both a well-lit airfield and a dark hanger.
The intent of this rule is to allow ground tests, under certain
circumstances, to demonstrate compliance for night operations. The FAA
notes the request to add additional night testing requirements is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking. In light of the comments, the FAA
recognizes the material in the AC regarding exterior lighting may
create confusion. As a result, we have revised the AC to clarify that
exterior lighting is identified as exterior aircraft lighting only.

D. Eliminate Testing Requirement

An aviation company requested that the FAA eliminate the
requirement to perform either a ground test or a flight test and
require instead that applicants show ``compliance.'' In support of this
request, the commenter stated the FAA and industry are generally in
agreement that regulations be performance-based without specifying a
means of compliance which, instead, is established through policy,
guidance, or industry standards.
The requested change to eliminate testing would compromise the
level of safety intended by this rule. Because of the complexity and
variables involved in lighting interaction in rotorcraft cockpits, the
FAA has determined that either a night flight test or a ground test is
required.
The FAA is adopting the rule as proposed.

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).
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed
rule: (1) Has regulatory cost savings, (2) is not an economically
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5) would
not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States; and (6) would not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local,
or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the
threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized below.
This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the
economic impacts of this rule.
The FAA determined that this action will likely result in
regulatory cost savings. The current regulations require night flight
testing to demonstrate compliance for night operations. This rule
provides a less costly ground test as an alternative to a night flight
test for certain interior lighting modifications. Currently, the FAA
estimates the total cost for a night flight test to be $37,280. These
costs include company costs associated with a ground evaluation
($3,600); company flight test, including flight preparation ($16,240);
company preparation of the test report ($800); and FAA flight test,
including flight preparation ($16,640). Under this final rule,
companies can demonstrate compliance on the ground, thereby avoiding
the company and FAA flight test costs and saving an estimated $32,880
per demonstration. Under this rule, the total cost for a ground test is
about $4,400, which is substantially less costly than a night flight
test of $37,280.
The FAA estimates that 10,506 helicopters in the current fleet will
be affected by the final rule. In addition, the FAA receives
approximately 120 certification project tests annually. Note that after
certification, new helicopters may not need to be upgraded in the next
10 years.\3\ However, the other helicopters will need at least 1
cockpit illumination upgrade within the next 10 years based on FAA
data. In particular, approximately 4,000 rotorcraft will have to
upgrade their automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) in the
first 3 years after the rule goes into effect.\4\ All of the remaining
6,506 are expected to have cockpit lighting night testing due to
upgrading communication, surveillance systems, or navigation/electronic
indicators in the remaining 7 years.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ As a result, we do not include new helicopters in this
analysis.
\4\ This is due to the requirements in 14 CFR 91.225, which
requires equipage by January 1, 2020. At the time of this analysis,
this equates to about 1,333 per year in the first three years. The
actual number of ADS-B related upgrades available for cost savings
may vary from this analysis depending on the publication and
implementation of this rule and the ability of all operators to
equip ADS-B by January 1, 2020.
\5\ This equates to about 929 per year in the remaining seven
years of the period of analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a result, this rule will relieve industry from performing higher
cost night flight tests with lower cost ground tests resulting in cost
savings. The FAA estimates industry will gain about $384.9 million in
total undiscounted cost savings over a 10-year period of analysis
[$32,880 x (10,506 tests + 1,200 certification projects)]. The FAA
estimates industry's present value cost savings to be about $277.2
million and annualized costs savings to be about $39.5 million using a
7 percent discount rate. The following table provides cost savings to
industry over a 10-year period of analysis.

[[Page 9422]]

Industry Cost Savings of Forgone Night Flight Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of tests Cost savings ($) *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Certification Rotorcraft Present value Present value
tests tests Total Undiscounted at 7% at 3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... 120 1,333 1,453 47,785,600 44,659,439 46,393,786
2....................................................... 120 1,333 1,453 47,785,600 41,737,794 45,042,511
3....................................................... 120 1,333 1,453 47,785,600 39,007,284 43,730,593
4....................................................... 120 929 1,049 34,505,211 26,323,861 30,657,433
5....................................................... 120 929 1,049 34,505,211 24,601,739 29,764,498
6....................................................... 120 929 1,049 34,505,211 22,992,279 28,897,571
7....................................................... 120 929 1,049 34,505,211 21,488,112 28,055,895
8....................................................... 120 929 1,049 34,505,211 20,082,347 27,238,733
9....................................................... 120 929 1,049 34,505,211 18,768,549 26,445,371
10...................................................... 120 929 1,049 34,505,211 17,540,700 25,675,118
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 1,200 10,500 11,700 384,893,280 277,202,103 331,901,510
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized...................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 39,467,343 38,908,982
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The cost savings estimates in this table use $32,880 per forgone rotorcraft night flight test (e.g., in the first year, the undiscounted cost savings
= $32,880 x 1,453 rotorcraft = $47.8 million).

This rule will also save the FAA about $1,200 per forgone night
flight test from the associated preparation and reviewing of test
flight plans, reports, and testing time. The FAA will save about $14
million (undiscounted) over a 10-year period of analysis [$1,200 x
(10,506 tests + 1,200 certification projects)]. The FAA estimates its
10-year present value cost savings to be about $10 million and the
annualized cost savings to be about $1.4 million at a 7 percent
discount rate.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that 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.
This rule provides a ground test as an alternative to a night
flight test in certain cases, such as internal lighting modifications.
The requirements for a ground test are less costly and stringent than a
night flight test. Thus, this rule will relieve the industry from the
costly burden of performing night flight tests under certain
conditions. The rule will result in cost savings for small entities
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 rule and determined that it will
only have a domestic impact and, therefore, no 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 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 is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this final rule.

[[Page 9423]]

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 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 and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this
action will 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, will not have Federalism implications.

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

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

C. Executive Order 13609, International Cooperation

Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action will have no
effect on international regulatory cooperation.

D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found
in the rule's economic analysis, above.

VI. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by
using the internet.
1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
3. Access the Government Publishing Office's web page at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/.
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the
docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name
of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document,
may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble.
To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 27

Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 29

Aircraft, Aviation safety.

The Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 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. 27.773 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec. 27.773 Pilot compartment view.

* * * * *
(b) If certification for night operation is requested, compliance
with paragraph (a) of this section must be shown by ground or night
flight tests.
* * * * *

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

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

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

0
4. Amend Sec. 29.773 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

Sec. 29.773 Pilot compartment view.

(a) * * *
(2) Each pilot compartment must be free of glare and reflection
that could interfere with the pilot's view. If certification for night
operation is requested, this must be shown by ground or night flight
tests.
* * * * *

Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a),
and 44703 in Washington, DC.
Daniel K. Elwell,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-04547 Filed 3-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

9419

Rules and Regulations Federal Register
Vol. 83, No. 44

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER an appeal of denial of access to Board PART 265—RULES REGARDING
contains regulatory documents having general records under the Freedom of DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
applicability and legal effect, most of which Information Act, the Privacy Act, and
are keyed to and codified in the Code of ■ 1. The authority citation for part 265
the Board’s rules regarding such access,
Federal Regulations, which is published under continues to read as follows:
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. and to delete the existing delegation of
authority to individual Board members. Authority: 12 U.S.C. 248(i) and (k).
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents. II. Regulatory Analysis § 265.4 [Amended]

These amendments relate solely to the ■ 2. In § 265.4:
agency’s organization, procedure, or ■ a. Remove paragraph (a)(1); and
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM ■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(2)
practice. Accordingly, the provisions of
through (4) as paragraphs (a)(1) through
12 CFR Part 265 the Administrative Procedure Act
(3).
[Docket No. R–1600] regarding notice of proposed rulemaking
and opportunity for public participation ■ 3. In § 265.5:
RIN 7100 AE99 ■ a. Revise the introductory text;
are not applicable.2
■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(2) and
Rules Regarding Delegation of Because no notice of proposed (3) as paragraphs (b)(3) and (4); and
Authority: Delegation of Authority to rulemaking is required to be issued, or ■ c. Add new paragraph (b)(2)
the Secretary of the Board has been issued, in connection with this The revisions and additions read as
rule, it is not a ‘‘rule’’ for purposes of follows:
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and that
Federal Reserve System (Board). act, therefore, does not apply.3 § 265.5 Functions delegated to Secretary
ACTION: Final rule. of the Board.
These amendments do not contain The Secretary of the Board (or the
SUMMARY: The Board is amending its any collection of information Secretary’s delegee) is authorized:
rules regarding delegation of authority requirements as defined by the
* * * * *
to delegate to the Secretary of the Board Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as
(b) * * *
the authority to review and determine amended.4
(2) Review of denial of access to
an appeal of denial of access to Board Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach- Board records; FOIA. To review and
records under the Freedom of Bliley Act 5 requires the Federal banking determine an appeal of denial of access
Information Act, the Privacy Act, and agencies to use plain language in all to Board records under the Freedom of
the Board’s rules regarding such access. proposed and final rules published after Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), the
DATES: Effective March 6, 2018. January 1, 2000. The Board has sought Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), and the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: to present this rule in a simple and Board’s rules regarding such access (12
Brian Phillips, Attorney, (202) 452– straightforward manner. CFR parts 261 and 261a, respectively).
3321, Legal Division, Board of * * * * *
The rule is not a ‘‘substantive rule’’
Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, 20th and C Streets NW, for the purposes of the effective-date By order of the Board of Governors of the
Washington, DC 20551. For the hearing provision of the Administrative Federal Reserve System, February 28, 2018.
impaired only, Telecommunications Procedure Act; as such, the act does not Margaret M. Shanks,
Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may require the Board to delay the effective Deputy Secretary of the Board.
contact (202) 263–4869. date of the rule.6 Accordingly, the [FR Doc. 2018–04385 Filed 3–5–18; 8:45 am]
amendments are effective March 6,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BILLING CODE P
2018.
I. Discussion
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 265
The Board previously adopted a rule DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
delegating to any member of the Board, Authority delegations (Government
as designated by the Chairman, the agencies), Banks, banking. Federal Aviation Administration
authority to ‘‘review and determine an
appeal of denial of access to Board Authority and Issuance 14 CFR Parts 27 and 29
records under the Freedom of For the reasons stated in the [Docket No.: FAA–2016–9275; Amdt. No(s).
Information Act, the Privacy Act, and Supplementary Information, the Board 27–50, 29–57]
the Board’s rules regarding such of Governors of the Federal Reserve
access.’’ 1 The Board has determined RIN 2120–AK91
System amends 12 CFR part 265 as
that the Secretary of the Board is follows: Rotorcraft Pilot Compartment View
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES

capable of acting on such requests.
Accordingly, the Board is amending its 25
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
rules regarding delegation of authority 3 See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Administration (FAA), DOT.
to delegate to the Secretary of the Board 4 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ACTION: Final rule.
the authority to review and determine 5 Public Law 106–102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471 (1999)

(codified at 12 U.S.C. 4809). SUMMARY: The FAA is revising its rules
1 12 CFR 265.4(a)(1) (internal citations omitted). 6 See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). for pilot compartment view to allow

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:02 Mar 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06MRR1.SGM 06MRR1

9420 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

ground tests to demonstrate compliance CFR). Specifically, §§ 27.773(a) and The original comment period closed
for night operations. The requirement 29.773(a) require that each pilot on November 16, 2016. However, the
for night flight testing to demonstrate compartment must be free of glare and FAA did not post the associated draft
compliance is not necessary in every reflection that could interfere with the advisory circulars (AC) for public
case. The revision will relieve the pilot’s view. Sections 27.773(b) and display until November 9, 2016. As a
burden of performing a night flight test 29.773(b) require a flight test to show result, the FAA reopened the comment
under certain conditions. compliance with paragraph (a) of their period (81 FR 83744) until December 13,
DATES: Effective May 7, 2018. respective sections if certification for 2016.
ADDRESSES: For information on where to night operations is requested. While this
II. Discussion of Public Comments and
obtain copies of rulemaking documents requirement applies to all applicants for
Final Rule
and other information related to this rotorcraft installations that may affect
final rule, see ‘‘How To Obtain the pilot’s ability to see outside the The FAA received comments from
Additional Information’’ in the aircraft, the FAA finds that a flight test three aviation companies (Aviation
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of may not be the only means available to Specialists Unlimited, Inc., Garmin
this document. show compliance for some International, and The Boeing
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For modifications. The purpose of the Company) and three individuals. Two of
technical questions concerning this internal lighting tests is to determine the aviation companies and an
action, contact Clark Davenport, whether the lighting creates glare and individual supported the proposed rule.
Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety reflections within the cockpit that could The remaining commenters supported
Management Group, Rotorcraft interfere with the pilot’s view outside of the rule but suggested changes, which
Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood the aircraft. are discussed below.
Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone The FAA has conducted rotorcraft A. Ground Test Criteria
(817) 222–5151; email ground and flight internal lighting tests
Clark.Davenport@faa.gov. An individual requested the FAA
over the past 15 years where all external
clearly define when a ground test can
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: lighting was blocked from entering the
and cannot be performed and address
cockpit on the ground evaluation and
Authority for This Rulemaking factors such as the amount of interior
then conducted the follow-on night
The FAA’s authority to issue rules on light emissions, exterior light emissions,
flight tests. They found that the ground
aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the color of light emissions, and focal point
test results were the same as the flight
United States Code. Subtitle I, Section of light intensity.
tests. Based on this experience, the FAA
106 describes the authority of the FAA The FAA notes that Advisory Circular
concluded that the two tests will
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation (AC) 27–1B, Certification of Normal
provide the same results. The FAA has
Programs, describes in more detail the Category Rotorcraft and AC 29–2C,
determined that creating an
scope of the agency’s authority. Certification of Transport Category
environment where external light is
This rulemaking is promulgated Rotorcraft address the individual’s
blocked from entering the cockpit or
under the authority described in comments. AC 27–1B and AC 29–2C
where the rotorcraft is placed in a
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Sections already provide qualitative general
darkened hangar or paint booth,
44701 and 44704. Under section 44701, guidance to determine appropriate
provides the same environment as a
the FAA is charged with prescribing testing methods.2
night flight test would for cockpit
regulations promoting safe flight of civil lighting evaluations. The FAA has B. Validation of Ground Testing
aircraft in air commerce by prescribing concluded that a ground test provides
minimum standards required in the An individual requested the FAA
the same level of safety and that the conduct tests to analyze specific
interest of safety for the design and current requirements in §§ 27.773 and
performance of aircraft. Under section proficiencies and deficiencies of
29.773 for a night flight test are simulated night ground testing.
44704, the Administrator issues type imposing an unnecessary economic
certificates for aircraft, aircraft engines, Alternatively, if there is already
burden on applicants for certification empirical and observational evidence
propellers, and specified appliances for night operations.
when the Administrator finds the that proves the safety factors in ground
product is properly designed and B. Summary of the NPRM testing, the commenter requested this be
manufactured, performs properly, and identified in the final rule.
On October 17, 2016, the FAA The FAA’s determination that a
meets the regulations and minimum published a notice of proposed
standards prescribed under section ground test provides the same level of
rulemaking (NPRM), ‘‘Rotorcraft Pilot safety is based on the FAA’s experience
44701(a). This regulation is within the Compartment View’’ (81 FR 71412). The
scope of these authorities because it with cockpit lighting evaluations for
FAA proposed to allow a ground test as rotorcraft certification projects. The
promotes safety by updating the existing an alternative to a night flight test in
minimum prescribed standards used FAA found the two tests had the same
certain cases to show compliance for results.
during the type certification process to night operations. The FAA included two
address an equivalent method of Draft Advisory Circulars, (AC) 27–1B, C. Requirements for Night Testing
showing compliance. Certification of Normal Category Two individuals requested that night
I. Background Rotorcraft and AC 29–2C, Certification testing account for various lighting
of Transport Category Rotorcraft, setting scenarios. One of these individuals
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES

A. Statement of the Problem forth the conditions under which a requested the FAA conduct tests to
The FAA’s rules on airworthiness ground test would be acceptable and an ensure the accuracy of each ground test
standards for the pilot compartment in acceptable means of compliance for the simulation using both interior and
rotorcraft and the requirements for each ground test.1 exterior lighting effects on the rotorcraft
pilot’s view from that compartment are
located in parts 27 and 29 of title 14 of 1 http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_ 2 Advisory Circular (AC) 27–1B and AC 29–2C

the Code of Federal Regulations (14 Library/. will be posted in Docket No. FAA–2016–9275.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:02 Mar 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06MRR1.SGM 06MRR1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 9421

windshield and visibility. Another entities. Third, the Trade Agreements rule, companies can demonstrate
individual requested that testing Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies compliance on the ground, thereby
account for different outside lighting from setting standards that create avoiding the company and FAA flight
scenarios through multiple ground tests, unnecessary obstacles to the foreign test costs and saving an estimated
in both a well-lit airfield and a dark commerce of the United States. In $32,880 per demonstration. Under this
hanger. developing U.S. standards, the Trade rule, the total cost for a ground test is
The intent of this rule is to allow Act requires agencies to consider about $4,400, which is substantially less
ground tests, under certain international standards and, where costly than a night flight test of $37,280.
circumstances, to demonstrate appropriate, that they be the basis of
U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded The FAA estimates that 10,506
compliance for night operations. The
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. helicopters in the current fleet will be
FAA notes the request to add additional
night testing requirements is beyond the 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a affected by the final rule. In addition,
scope of this rulemaking. In light of the written assessment of the costs, benefits, the FAA receives approximately 120
comments, the FAA recognizes the and other effects of proposed or final certification project tests annually. Note
material in the AC regarding exterior rules that include a Federal mandate that after certification, new helicopters
lighting may create confusion. As a likely to result in the expenditure by may not need to be upgraded in the next
result, we have revised the AC to clarify State, local, or tribal governments, in the 10 years.3 However, the other
that exterior lighting is identified as aggregate, or by the private sector, of helicopters will need at least 1 cockpit
exterior aircraft lighting only. $100 million or more annually (adjusted illumination upgrade within the next 10
for inflation with base year of 1995). years based on FAA data. In particular,
D. Eliminate Testing Requirement In conducting these analyses, FAA approximately 4,000 rotorcraft will have
An aviation company requested that has determined that this proposed rule: to upgrade their automatic dependent
the FAA eliminate the requirement to (1) Has regulatory cost savings, (2) is not surveillance-broadcast (ADS–B) in the
perform either a ground test or a flight an economically ‘‘significant regulatory first 3 years after the rule goes into
test and require instead that applicants action’’ as defined in section 3(f) of effect.4 All of the remaining 6,506 are
show ‘‘compliance.’’ In support of this Executive Order 12866, (3) is not expected to have cockpit lighting night
request, the commenter stated the FAA ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s testing due to upgrading
and industry are generally in agreement Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) communication, surveillance systems,
that regulations be performance-based would not have a significant economic or navigation/electronic indicators in
without specifying a means of impact on a substantial number of small the remaining 7 years.5
compliance which, instead, is entities; (5) would not create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign As a result, this rule will relieve
established through policy, guidance, or industry from performing higher cost
industry standards. commerce of the United States; and (6)
would not impose an unfunded night flight tests with lower cost ground
The requested change to eliminate
mandate on state, local, or tribal tests resulting in cost savings. The FAA
testing would compromise the level of
governments, or on the private sector by estimates industry will gain about
safety intended by this rule. Because of
exceeding the threshold identified $384.9 million in total undiscounted
the complexity and variables involved
above. These analyses are summarized cost savings over a 10-year period of
in lighting interaction in rotorcraft
below. analysis [$32,880 × (10,506 tests + 1,200
cockpits, the FAA has determined that
This portion of the preamble certification projects)]. The FAA
either a night flight test or a ground test
summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the estimates industry’s present value cost
is required.
economic impacts of this rule. savings to be about $277.2 million and
The FAA is adopting the rule as The FAA determined that this action
proposed. annualized costs savings to be about
will likely result in regulatory cost $39.5 million using a 7 percent discount
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses savings. The current regulations require rate. The following table provides cost
night flight testing to demonstrate savings to industry over a 10-year
A. Regulatory Evaluation compliance for night operations. This period of analysis.
Changes to Federal regulations must rule provides a less costly ground test as
undergo several economic analyses. an alternative to a night flight test for 3 As a result, we do not include new helicopters

First, Executive Order 12866 and certain interior lighting modifications. in this analysis.
Executive Order 13563 direct that each Currently, the FAA estimates the total 4 This is due to the requirements in 14 CFR

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a cost for a night flight test to be $37,280. 91.225, which requires equipage by January 1, 2020.
regulation only upon a reasoned These costs include company costs At the time of this analysis, this equates to about
determination that the benefits of the associated with a ground evaluation 1,333 per year in the first three years. The actual
number of ADS–B related upgrades available for
intended regulation justify its costs. ($3,600); company flight test, including
cost savings may vary from this analysis depending
Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act flight preparation ($16,240); company on the publication and implementation of this rule
of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires preparation of the test report ($800); and and the ability of all operators to equip ADS–B by
agencies to analyze the economic FAA flight test, including flight January 1, 2020.
impact of regulatory changes on small preparation ($16,640). Under this final 5 This equates to about 929 per year in the

remaining seven years of the period of analysis.
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:02 Mar 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06MRR1.SGM 06MRR1

9422 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

INDUSTRY COST SAVINGS OF FORGONE NIGHT FLIGHT TESTS
Number of tests Cost savings
($) *
Year Certification Rotorcraft Total Present Present
tests tests Undiscounted value at 7% value at 3%

1 ............................................................... 120 1,333 1,453 47,785,600 44,659,439 46,393,786
2 ............................................................... 120 1,333 1,453 47,785,600 41,737,794 45,042,511
3 ............................................................... 120 1,333 1,453 47,785,600 39,007,284 43,730,593
4 ............................................................... 120 929 1,049 34,505,211 26,323,861 30,657,433
5 ............................................................... 120 929 1,049 34,505,211 24,601,739 29,764,498
6 ............................................................... 120 929 1,049 34,505,211 22,992,279 28,897,571
7 ............................................................... 120 929 1,049 34,505,211 21,488,112 28,055,895
8 ............................................................... 120 929 1,049 34,505,211 20,082,347 27,238,733
9 ............................................................... 120 929 1,049 34,505,211 18,768,549 26,445,371
10 ............................................................. 120 929 1,049 34,505,211 17,540,700 25,675,118

Total .................................................. 1,200 10,500 11,700 384,893,280 277,202,103 331,901,510

Annualized ................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 39,467,343 38,908,982
* The cost savings estimates in this table use $32,880 per forgone rotorcraft night flight test (e.g., in the first year, the undiscounted cost sav-
ings = $32,880 × 1,453 rotorcraft = $47.8 million).

This rule will also save the FAA about section 605(b) of the RFA provides that legitimate domestic objective, such as
$1,200 per forgone night flight test from the head of the agency may so certify the protection of safety, and does not
the associated preparation and and a regulatory flexibility analysis is operate in a manner that excludes
reviewing of test flight plans, reports, not required. The certification must imports that meet this objective. The
and testing time. The FAA will save include a statement providing the statute also requires consideration of
about $14 million (undiscounted) over a factual basis for this determination, and international standards and, where
10-year period of analysis [$1,200 × the reasoning should be clear. appropriate, that they be the basis for
(10,506 tests + 1,200 certification This rule provides a ground test as an U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed
projects)]. The FAA estimates its 10-year alternative to a night flight test in the potential effect of this rule and
present value cost savings to be about certain cases, such as internal lighting determined that it will only have a
$10 million and the annualized cost modifications. The requirements for a
domestic impact and, therefore, no
savings to be about $1.4 million at a 7 ground test are less costly and stringent
effect on international trade.
percent discount rate. than a night flight test. Thus, this rule
will relieve the industry from the costly D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
burden of performing night flight tests
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 under certain conditions. The rule will Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a result in cost savings for small entities Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4)
principle of regulatory issuance that affected by this rulemaking action. requires each Federal agency to prepare
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with If an agency determines that a a written statement assessing the effects
the objectives of the rule and of rulemaking will not result in a of any Federal mandate in a proposed or
applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and significant economic impact on a final agency rule that may result in an
informational requirements to the scale substantial number of small entities, the expenditure of $100 million or more (in
of the businesses, organizations, and head of the agency may so certify under 1995 dollars) in any one year by State,
governmental jurisdictions subject to section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as local, and tribal governments, in the
regulation.’’ To achieve this principle, provided in section 605(b), the head of aggregate, or by the private sector; such
agencies are required to solicit and the FAA certifies that this rulemaking a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant
consider flexible regulatory proposals will not result in a significant economic regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently
and to explain the rationale for their impact on a substantial number of small uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155
actions to assure that such proposals are entities. million in lieu of $100 million. This
given serious consideration. The RFA
C. International Trade Impact rule does not contain such a mandate;
covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for- Assessment therefore, the requirements of Title II of
profit organizations, and small The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 the Act do not apply.
governmental jurisdictions. (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the E. Paperwork Reduction Act
Agencies must perform a review to Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub.
determine whether a rule will have a L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
significant economic impact on a from establishing standards or engaging (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the
substantial number of small entities. If in related activities that create FAA consider the impact of paperwork
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES

the agency determines that it will, the unnecessary obstacles to the foreign and other information collection
agency must prepare a regulatory commerce of the United States. burdens imposed on the public. The
flexibility analysis as described in the Pursuant to these Acts, the FAA has determined that there is no
RFA. However, if an agency determines establishment of standards is not new requirement for information
that a rule is not expected to have a considered an unnecessary obstacle to collection associated with this final
significant economic impact on a the foreign commerce of the United rule.
substantial number of small entities, States, so long as the standard has a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:02 Mar 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06MRR1.SGM 06MRR1

Document Created: 2018-11-01 08:49:11
Document Modified: 2018-11-01 08:49:11

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		Rules and Regulations
Action		Final rule.
Dates		Effective May 7, 2018.
Contact		For technical questions concerning this action, contact Clark Davenport, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5151; email [email protected]
FR Citation		83 FR 9419
RIN Number		2120-AK91
CFR Citation		14 CFR 27 14 CFR 29
CFR Associated		Aircraft and Aviation Safety

83 FR 9419 - Rotorcraft Pilot Compartment View

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFederal Aviation Administration

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 44 (March 6, 2018)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration