| |
CFR NPRM
 Federal Register Information
 Header Information
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 27 and 29
[Docket No. 21180; Notice No. 80-25]
Rotocraft Regulatory Review Program Notice No. 1
Preamble Information
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to add now rotorcraft airworthiness standards and update existing criteria in the areas of instrument flight rule (IFR) certification and ice protection certification. It also proposed revisions to the applicability sections of Parts 27 and 29 which allow for increased utilization for rotorcraft engaged primarily in utility or cargo operations and provides additional protection for rotorcraft carrying 10 or more passengers. The rotorcraft industry is the fastest growing segment in aviation today. The increasing use and the advent of IFR flight in rotorcraft demonstrates the need to review these parts. This notice is based on a number of proposals discussed at the Rotorcraft Regulatory Review Conference held December 10-14, 1979, in New Orleans, LA, and the Rotorcraft Regulatory Review Meeting held August 18-20, 1980, in Washington, D.C. These proposals offer regulatory alternatives which would result in significant cost savings for rotorcraft manufacturers and operators, and represent a significant step in the FAA's program to reduce regulatory burdens through development alternatives.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 17, 1981.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attn: Rules Docket (AGC-204), Docket No. 21180; 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20591, or delivered in duplicate to: Room 916, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20591.
Comments delivered must be marked: Docket No. 21180.
Comments may be inspected at Room 916 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dan Keenan, Regulatory Review Branch, AVS-22, Safety Regulations Staff, Associate Administrator for Aviation Standards, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20591: Telephone: (202) 755-8714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rules by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy, or economic impact that might result from adoption of the proposals contained in this notice are invited. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the address above. All communications received on or before the date specified above will be considered by the Administrator before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposed contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rule making will be fixed in the docket. Commenters wishing to have FAA acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: "Comments on Docket No. 21180." The postcard will be dated, time stamped, and returned to the commenter.
For convenience, each proposal in this notice is numbered separately. The FAA requests that interested persons, when submitting comments, refer to proposals by these numbers and by the section to which they relate.
Availability of This Notice
Any person may obtain a copy of this notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Information Center, APA-430, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20591, or by calling (202) 426-8058. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2 which describes the application procedures.
Historical Background
On January 5, 1979, the FAA gave notice of its Rotorcraft Regulatory Review Program and invited all interested persons to submit proposals for consideration during its forthcoming Rotorcraft Regulatory Review Conference (Notice 79-1; 43 FR 23925). In that notice, the FAA announced that it would prepare a conference agenda containing a compilation of the proposals submitted and other information the conference arrangements.
The FAA received 613 proposals in response to Notice 79-1, of which 569 were placed on the conference agenda. The remaining 44 proposals were excluded because they fell outside the scope of the review program or for other reasons outlined in Notice 79-1. A separate printing of six other proposals inadvertently omitted from the compilation was distributed at the conference.
In Notice 79-1A, published March 2, 1979, the FAA extended the period for submission of proposals relating to Notice 79-1 by 60 days to May 31, 1979. This action was in response to a Helicopter Association of America (HAA) letter dated February 12, 1979, which stated that they did not have sufficient manpower to translate the grassroots comments into constructive proposals and justifications within the time allotted. This action was further supported by a letter from the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) dated February 14, 1979, which stated that staffing limitations prevented anything more than a broad survey of the proposals. They requested an extension of 90 days.
In light of these comments, the FAA concluded that it was in the public interest to encourage a thorough review of the regulations and that good cause existed for extending the date for submission of proposals.
On October 22, 1979, the FAA announced that the Rotorcraft Regulatory Review Conference would be held in New Orleans, Louisiana from December 10-14, 1979, and that the conference agenda and compilation of proposals were available (Notice 79-1B; 43 FR 60747).
On November 23, 1979, the FAA announced a change in the agenda for the Rotorcraft Regulatory Review Conference to divide the specialty areas into three separate sessions rather than four (Notice 79-1C; 43 FR 67136). Over 155 persons attended the conference which convened on December 10, 1979, remaining in session until each proposal had been discussed. A transcript of those discussions has been placed in the docket.
On March 24, 1980, the FAA received a letter from the Helicopter Association of America and the Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc., requesting a meeting to present material to the FAA in an effort to assure themselves that the industry logic was understood by the Rotorcraft Review Team. The FAA gave careful consideration to the request and determined it would be in the best interest of all concerned to provide the requested meeting. The FAA also felt that all interested persons should be afforded the same opportunity to listen to and comment on the industry logic. Accordingly, Notice 79-1D (44 FR 43202; June 26, 1980) announced a Rotorcraft Review Meeting to be held August 18-20, 1980, in Washington, D.C. The meeting began at 9:00 a.m. on August 18, 1980, and remained in session through August 20, 1980. A copy of the transcript has been placed in the docket.
The FAA plans for the Rotorcraft Regulatory Review Program contemplate publication of six notices of proposed rulemaking. This first notice includes proposals dealing with the applicability sections of Parts 27 and 29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), plys IFR certification and icing criteria. The second notice will cover flight and systems proposals. The third notice will cover powerplant proposals. The fourth notice will cover the airframe proposals and the fifth notice will cover operations and maintenance proposals. The final notice, if needed, will pick up on all deferred proposals.
Regulatory Structure
Both Parts 27 and 29 of the FAR's deals with certification of civil rotorcraft. Part 27 currently deal with rotorcraft that are under 6,000 pounds and Part 29 deals with rotorcraft over 6,000 pounds. Within Part 29, there are two categories - A and B.
Category A provides the most rigid rules, requiring independent engines, fuel systems and electrical systems. Category A also requires that no single failure in these areas can cause simultaneous loss of two or more engines.
Category B of Part 29 deals with rotorcraft under 20,000 pounds. These rotorcraft may be single - or multiengine and are not limited in the number of passenger seats. Category B rotorcraft are not required to have the capability for continued flight in the event of an engine failure.
The Proposals
It is important to clearly define the nature of the rotorcraft addressed in these proposals as early as possible in the rulemaking process because of the potentially far-reaching effects on and the interface with the remainder of the rotorcraft rules. Applicability is therefore being included in the first notice. Also, in view of projections for increased usage of rotorcraft in IFR and icing conditions, these subjects are considered high priority and are included in this first notice. This proposal is part of the ongoing regulatory program of the FAA to upgrade type certification standards for rotorcraft consistent with the advancing state of the art of aircraft and aircraft engines.
Economic Impact
A preliminary evaluation has been prepared examining the potential economic impacts of the regulatory changes proposed in this notice. The results of the preliminary evaluation are summarized here and a copy of the evaluation report has been placed in the docket. The evaluation examines the effects and potential impacts of the following proposed changes to Parts 27 and 29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) -
1. Formal adoption within the FAR of airworthiness standards and related operational limitations that will enable electing users to safely utilize conforming rotorcraft in Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) conditions;
2. Formal adoption within the FAR of airworthiness standards and related operational restrictions that will enable electing users to safely utilize conforming rotorcraft in icing conditions; and
3. Revisions to the applicability sections of Parts 27 and 29 to limit the number of passengers for which normal category and category B rotorcraft may be certificated to require category A certification for any rotorcraft design to carry 10 or more passengers, to remove the 20,000-pound weight limit on category B rotorcraft, and to remove the height-velocity operating limitation from category B rotorcraft.
On the basis of the preliminary evaluation, the only changes proposed in this notice that are expected to have considerable impacts on rotorcraft manufacturers or operators are those included in the revisions to the applicability sections of Parts 27 and 29. The nine passenger limit for normal category rotorcraft will impose no cost impacts until it is possible to produce vehicles that are not only technically but also commercially feasible. Removal of the 20,000-pound weight limit on category B rotorcraft will provide opportunities for increased revenues to operators through the availability of helicopters designed to category B standards but with higher gross weights and payloads than are currently permitted.
Removal of height-velocity as an operational limitation on category B rotorcraft will provide operators with opportunities for increased revenues from greater utilization of category B rotorcraft in utility and cargo missions.
The requirement for category A certification of rotorcraft with 10 or more passengers will increase cost to manufacturers and operators of such rotorcraft up to 20,000 pounds gross weight.
Uncertainties and Assumptions. It is difficult to anticipate when the impacts of these proposed changes to airworthiness standards will be felt, how many aircraft will be impacted, or the size of the impacts if and when they are ever realized. In the past, helicopter development programs normally lasted from 3 to 5 years after the commitment date, which would suggest that the impacts of the proposed rule changes would start to be seen in the prices of new production helicopters between 1983 and 1985. However, a recent report prepared for the Helicopter Association of America asserted that "* * * manufacturers have either applied for civil type certificates for all those helicopters and their derivatives which are likely to come into existence in the next few years * * * or the advanced design are not sufficiently defined to allow a thorough analysis of performance, acoustic levels, and operating costs." (Bolt, Bareanek and Newman, Inc., Report No. 4226 "Economic Impact of Proposed FAA Helicopter Noise Regulation (NPRM 79-13)" January 1980, Cambridge, Massachusetts, page viii.) Accordingly, while the impacts of these proposed changes might be seen as early as 1983 or 1985, it seems more likely that they will not occur until 1988 or 1990. They types and numbers of new helicopters to be produced in that time frame are equally difficult to predict. Moreover, the potential progress in helicopter technology over the next 5 to 10 years makes the estimation of actual cost impacts highly speculative. Accordingly, it was necessary to adopt a set of assumptions that are representative of potential future industry conditions and to estimate costs on the basis of current year costs. It was also necessary to assume that changes will be achieved in the context of current technology, in terms of current capability, and in terms of technology in which new requirements would be embedded. These assumptions are that -
(a) Estimates are in 1980 dollars.
(b) Costs are developed on a "per certification" basis. That is, the costs developed herein should be multiplied by the number of expected Part 27 and/or Part 29 rotorcraft certifications as appropriate for the relevant time period.
(c) Onetime certification cost estimates are the maximum amount for an average sized Part 27 or Part 29 rotorcraft.
(d) A 3-year development period is assumed. Onetime design, test, and demonstration costs are assigned to and spread over the development period.
(e) All incremental production costs/savings and revenue increases/decreases are assigned to operators. One-half of the amount is assigned to the year of production/purchase and the full amount is assigned in each succeeding year.
(f) Production starts in the first year after development (year 4). The first year production quantity for Part 27 rotorcraft is assumed to be 100 units. The first year production for Part 29 rotorcraft is assumed to be 50 units.
(g) Annual production of Part 27 rotorcraft in the following years is assumed to be 200 units. Annual production for Part 29 rotorcraft is assumed to be 100 units in each following year.
(h) Total Part 27 rotorcraft production is assumed to be 500 units and Part 29 production is assumed to be 250 units for allocation of onetime production costs/savings to individual rotorcraft. These costs/savings are assigned to operators in the year of purchase.
(i) Increases or decreases in rotorcraft weight are valued at $300 per pound per unit produced.
(j) Increases or decreases in rotorcraft payload are valued at $300 per pound per rotorcraft per year.
(k) Multiengine rotorcraft in the 6,000 to 20,000-pound weight range that are certificated to category B standards will require a 20 percent increase in engine power in order to provide equivalent payload capacity over a reasonable portion of the operating envelope when certificated and operated under category A standards.
(1) An increase in a rotorcraft engine power rating by one shaft horsepower will cost the manufacturer $160 per aircraft. This includes the cost of upgrading the transmission.
Discussion. The adoption in Parts 27 and 29 of certification standards and operational limitations related to IFR approval of rotorcraft is considered to have no economic impact since there will really be no change in current operating practices or standards. IFR certification is not mandatory, so the applicant has the opportunity to evaluate whether the provisions of IFR capability in a given model rotorcraft will be sufficiently attractive in the market that it will help achieve revenues, profits, and market-share objectives. Moreover, many rotorcraft have been approved for IFR under earlier interim standards that are so similar to the proposed standards that this proposal does not materially alter the economic requirements. The formal adoption of the interim standards into the FAR is considered to benefit manufacturers by providing a more stable design standard.
The adoption of certification standards and operating limitations that will allow dispatch into and operation in icing conditions has no economic impact. Since certification for icing is not required, this proposal opens a new option for enhancing rotorcraft utilization. The manufacturer and the operator can determine what advantages this additional capability offers in given weather conditions and mission requirements and can decide whether adoption of this capability offers an economic advantage.
The applicability proposal presents a difficult economic situation to assess in precise monetary terms because of the many facets of the proposal, the many variables involved in certification and operation, and the inability to quantify safety in economic terms. Nonetheless, the following assessment can be made.
(a) Removal of the present 20,000-pound category B weight limit. This feature of the proposal would allow operation of category B helicopters at higher gross weights than those permitted under the present rule. The economic evaluation report provides an estimate of, as an example, an annual benefit to an operator of $600,000 for a 2,000-pound increase in cargo or passenger weight capacity. Accordingly, if 50 rotorcraft with this improved capability are produced in the first year after certification, and 100 are produced in each of the second and third years, then the annual industry increases in revenue would be $15 million, $60 million, and $120 million, respectively.
(b) Nine passenger limit for normal category. This aspect of the proposal would apply a nine passenger limit for certification in the normal category where none presently exists. Present helicopters certified in the normal category have passenger seating capacities of less than nine and the FAA is not aware of any projected helicopters with seating capacities of 10 or more in the 6,000-pound gross weight category. Therefore, there appears to be no significant economic impact associated with this aspect of the proposal. Rotorcraft technology has advanced to the point that helicopters under 6,000 pounds with 10 or more passenger seats may be technically feasible. However, considering the constraints that would be imposed on the range/payload tradeoffs in order to stay below 6,000 pounds, it appears that such a rotorcraft would not offer any competitive advantage over rotorcraft already in production and would offer no opportunity for model derivation.
(c) Removal of height-velocity as a limitation for Part 29, Category B. This feature of the proposal is judged to represent a moderate savings to operators because of greater utilization and less restriction in the ways in which rotorcraft can be used for utility and cargo application, confined area operations, etc.
(d) Requirement for Part 29, category A certification with ten or more passengers. This element of the proposal would necessitate certification and operation under category A requirements for new rotorcraft with passenger seating capacity of 10 or more. It would alter the eligibility for certification of rotorcraft up to 20,000 pounds. The economic impact of this proposal is characterized by many variables. The impact of the category A operational requirement would vary over the operating envelope of the rotorcraft. For operations in cold ambient conditions at sea level heliports with large surface areas, there would be no economic impact since the category A and category B weight limits for operating in this condition would be similar. Any major impact on operating payload would tend to occur in hot day, high altitude ambient conditions while operating from confined heliports near the maximum weight capabilities of the helicopter. Rather than accept a performance loss for category A, manufacturers may elect to provide their passenger carrying operators with the payload capability which would have been available from category B. This will necessitate increased engine power and transmission input drive substantiation for one-engine-inoperative situations and would essentially be a one-time cost passed on by the manufacturer to the purchaser. The cost will vary by the environmental conditions for which the rotorcraft is marketed, the size of the rotorcraft and engine, the amount of additional power the manufacturer elects to provide, and factors such as the growth potential of current engines.
Performance tradeoffs and therefore engine power tradeoffs are possible for various combinations of weight, altitude, temperature, and category A takeoff distance. However, assuming a 20 percent power increase would provide an equivalent payload to that currently existing with category B throughout a reasonable portion of the envelope, a 700 SHP engine would require a 140 SHP increase.
Applying an average cost factor of $160 per SHP increase gives a cost increase of $22,400 per engine or $44,800 for each twin engine rotorcraft. If the purchase price of the rotorcraft were $1.5 million, the cost to provide the increased power and performance would be 3 percent of the cost of the helicopter. Using the assumed production rates for Part 29 rotorcraft, 50 helicopters would be affected in the first year of production of each certificated model and 100 in succeeding years. This results in 300 rotorcraft being affected and an increase in cost of $11,200,000 for the first 3 years of production. In addition, there may be some increase in fuel consumption as a result of operating the more powerful engines at a lower percentage of power during normal conditions. Assuming a turbine powered multiengine helicopter consuming fuel at 700 pounds per hour at a cost of $1.50 per gallon, a 5 percent increase in fuel consumption would equate to an additional 35 pounds per hour or approximately $7.95 per hour increased operating costs. For a helicopter operating 500 hours per year, the annual increase would be approximately $3,977. If 50 helicopters are produced in the first year after certification, and 100 are produced in each of the succeeding 2 years, the operating cost increase would be approximately $1,293,000 for the first 3 years. Thus, each rotorcraft model certificated under these provisions shares a total cost impact of approximately $12.5 million over the first 3 years of production and operation.
The increase in power would have other beneficial effects in terms of category B performance and increase cruise and VNE speeds if the rotorcraft were certified for operation in both categories. (Therefore, although there may be some moderate to major costs associated with the 10-passenger, category A requirements, they may be minimized or offset by other benefits and gains in safety.)
The foregoing is a summary of information and analysis presented in the draft regulatory evaluation in the docket for this rulemaking action. Commentators are requested to provide additional or alternative cost impact information where appropriate, i.e., where the requirement will have sufficient impact on the overall cost of the development program or on the cost of manufacture to have a measurable effect on unit price. Commentators are encouraged to avoid general comments and impact estimates, but to address particular changes with clear statements of the technical requirements and the related cost impacts.
Regulatory Information
Footer Information
Issued in Washington, D.C., on December 15, 1980.
M. C. Beard,
Director of Airworthiness
[FR Doc. 80-39235 Filed 12-17-80; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4010-13-M
Comments
Document History
Other Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Actions:
Not Applicable.
Final Rule Actions:
Final Rule. Docket No. 21180; Issued on 01/06/83.
|