i Exemption No. 10598

BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591



### In the matter of the petition of

BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON

CANADA LIMITED Regulatory Docket No. FAA

‐ 2012

‐ 0123

for an exemption from § 27.1 of Title 14,

Code of Federal Regulations

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

....................................................................................................................................... 2

Regulatory Basis for Granting Reconsideration

............................................................................................ 4

Discussion

I. The Denial Order Committed Errors of Law in Ignoring the Safety and Public Interest

Determinations of the Canadian Government

.......................................................................... 7

II. The Denial Order Erred As a Matter of Law and Fact In Failing To Find Th at Bell Has Met

the Safety Requirement

........................................................................................................... 8

A. The Denial Order Makes No Specific Findings as To Whether Bell Has Met the Safety

Requirement of Part 11

...................................................................................................... 8

B. The Safety of the Exemption Has Been Established by More than Substantial

Evidence

.............................................................................................................................. 8

C. With the Additional Equip m ent Required by TCCA, the 429 Meets Part 29 or

Provides an Equivalent Level of Safety to Part 29 Requirements

..................................... 10ii III. The Denial Order Erred As a Matter Of Law And Fact In Finding That An Exemption

Would Not Serve The Public Interest

................................................................................ 11

A. Precedent and the Agency’s Own Economic Analysis Establish That an

Exemption Would Provide Important Public Benefits

............................................... 11

B. The Denial Order Relies on an In comple te Competitive Analysis

.............................. 13

1. Eurocopter already has a Competitive Advantage as a Result of

Regulatory Waivers

....................................................................................... 13

2. The Impact Of Eurocopter’s Regulatory Advantage Is Clear

......................... 14

3. The Denial Order Has Already Helped Eurocopter Capture More of the

Mark

.............................................................................................................. 15

4. Grantin g Bell’s Exemption Will Level the Playing Field

................................. 15

5. The Exemption Would Not Give Bell an Unfair Advantage over Other

Part 27 or Part 29 Models

............................................................................. 16

6. The Exemption Would Promote Safety and Innovation

............................... 16

C. The Denial Order Should Have Considered the Impact of the Exe mption on U. S.

Jobs

............................................................................................................................. 18

IV. The Denial Order Has a Negative Impact on Public Policy

................................................ 19

A. The Denial Order Errs in Holding That the Line between Parts 27 and 29 is

Fixed and Unyielding

............................................................................................ 19

B. Focusing Exclusively on Gross Weight Ignores the Amended Reg ulation and

Results in a De cision that Places Form over Substance

....................................... 19

C. The Denial Order Effectively Requires That an Industry Consensus or

Rulemaking Be in Progress In Order To Grant Bell Canada’s Exemption

Request

................................................................................................................ 20

D. The Denial Order Does Not Correctly Characterize Agency Precedent

............... 22

E. Removing Saf ety Equi pment to Increase Payload Is Not the Right Answer

........ 23

V. Conclusion and Request for Relief

.................................................................................... 25Exemption No. 10598

BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON

CANADA LIMITED Regulatory Docket No. FAA

‐ 2012

‐ 0123

for an exemption from § 27.1 of Title 14,

Code of Federal Regulations

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

“A 1,000

‐ pound increase in gross weight will result in improved mission performance

without causing a decreased level of safety to the pilot or passengers. FAA has

determined that this increase in gross weight will be of benefit to the public by

allowing an expansion of the mission capability (improved payload, range, etc.) of th is

helicopt er. This should be particularly beneficial to operators of air ambulances, etc.” 1

In the mid

‐ 1990s

, FAA granted gross weight exemptions of 500

‐ 1000 pounds to nearly all Part 27

rotorcraft then operating at the top of the weight class. These exemptions were granted to Agusta,

Kaman, and MD Helicopters three years before Part 27.1 was amended to raise the class weight. Th e

exemptions were grante d permanently, irrespective of whether Part 27 weight limits were ever

increased. A similar Part 27 gross weight exemption was granted in Europe for the Eurocopter EC135.

Subsequently, FAA’s Office of Aviation Policy and Plans determined that a product gap existed at

the light end of Part 29 be cause it was not economically viable to certifi cate a new model under Part 29

below 8,000 pounds. The only helicopter operating then and now in that weight range is the Eurocopter

Deutschland BK117 (aka “EC145”) 2

– a model that is “grandfathered” on a 1983 type certificate and

exempt from having to meet many of the latest Part 29 standards such as bird strike and flaw tolerance.

When granting class weight exemptions in the mid

‐ 1990’s, FAA determined that new Part 27

models were at a weight disadvantage to older mo dels be cause they had to meet higher certification

1 McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems Exemption No. 6505 at 6 (Sept. 5, 1996) (emphasis added).

2 Eurocopter Deutschland markets the latest version of the BK117 as the “EC145”. Though marketed as

a unique model, it is FAA certificated as the BK117

‐ C2 under Type Certificate H13EU, issued in 1983. The

model will hereafter be referred to as the EC145.

### 2 standards. The Agency also determined that it would be in the public interest to permit certain Part 27

models to operate at the lower end of Part 29 if that would improve the utility of the model in public

service operations, such as EMS. Those were the grounds on which exemptions were granted at that

time.

Fifteen years later, Bell finds itself in the same position that Eurocopter, Agusta, Kaman, and MD

faced in the mid

‐ 1990’s. The Bell 429 is certified to the very latest standards of Part 27, and actually

meets 97% of Part 29, but this makes the mod el heavier than its older competitors. The 429 could

readily operate at 7,500 pounds and provide greatly improved performance for operators, including

critical public interest operators like HEMS. It has been granted an exemption to operate at this weight

by Transport Canada and eleven other nations.

On August 13, 2012, FAA issued a Denial Order that reversed course on key findings it ado p ted

fifteen years ago in support of gross weight exemptions granted to other manufacturers. The Order

seems to rely on assumptions and factual conclusions submitted by Bell’s competitors on the last day of

the notice and comment period. Bell did not have a procedural opportuni ty to reply to these inaccurat e

submissions. Therefore, Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd. (“Bell”) respectfully petitions FAA to

reconsider the August 13, 2012 Denial Order.

In support of this Petition for Reconsideration, Bell also will present additional evidence,

argument, and testimony demonstrating the significant life

‐ saving and pu bli c interest benefits of the

requested exemption.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Bell 429 is a 7,000 pound twin

‐ engine helicopter certificated by Transport Canada Civil

Aviation (“TCCA”) in 2009 as a “normal” category rotorcraft under the Canadian equivalent of US Part

27. It is the only helicopter certificated under the newest, most stringent standards for “normal”

category rotrocraft. Because Bell designed the 42 9 as a “Category A” helicopter, and chose to add

further safety enhancements, it actually meets ninety

‐ seven percent of the latest requirements of Part

29 (“transport category”). The 429 is certificated for 7,500 pounds external load, but is limited by

regulation in the United States to 7,000 pounds for internal load.

Earlier this ye ar

, Bell petitioned FAA to validate an exemption granted by TCCA that increases

internal load of the 429 by 500 pounds. This was necessary to enhance the 429’s usefulness for EMS

and law enforcement operators, who need the increased range and load for emergency services,

particularly in remote areas. TCCA granted the exe m ption after an extensive review, finding the weight

increase safe and in the public interest. Eleven other nations have already validated the exemption.

FAA, however, declined Bell’s request. This decision seems to have been strongly influenced by

the objections of other helicopter manufacturers, who claimed that an exemption would give the 429 a

compet itive advantage. FAA found that the exemption would be unfair to competing manufacturers,

based on the assumption that FAA would be waiving requirements for the 429 that competing models

were required to meet.

The Denial Order, however, was in error on this point as a matter of law and fac t

. The closest

Part 29 models are “grandfathered” on old type certificates, and FAA has already waived more of the

current Part 29 requirements for those helicopters than the Agency would waive for Bell in granting the

### 3 429 exemption. The Bell 429 meets far more of current Part 29 than its nearest “transport category”

competitor, the Eurocopter Deutschland EC145.

In addition, the Denial Order makes a competitive impact analysis based on incomplete data

submitted by a competitor on the final day of the notice and comment period. Bell does not believe

that the co mpetitive impact on European manufacturers is a matter of “public interest” under Part

11.81. To the extent the Agency considers competitive impact, however, Bell believes FAA will reach

different conclusions with more complete data. A complete review of the US light twin market would

reveal that competing mo dels are certi fied under much older and less rigorous standard. It is also clear

that Eurocopter Deutschland currently dominates the US light twin market, delivering 74% of all

helicopters in this class over the past 6 years. This is a competitor that did not need special protection in

the US m arketplace.

While the competitive impact on European helicopter manufacturers is not a valid “public

interest” consideration, the impact of the exemption on US jobs is very much a matter of public interest

and should have been given great weight by FAA. The Agency recognized that the exemption would

likely create additional 42 9 sales at th e expense of competitors. The Bell 429 is manufactured in the

United States and Canada by Bell’s 12,000 U.S. and Canadian employees. Almost all other light twin

helicopters sold in the United States over the past six years were manufactured in Europe. Eurocopter

holds three quarters of the U.S

. light twi n market, but only has 876 employees in this country.

Additional 429 sales will unquestionably drive jobs to U.S. workers that would otherwise go to Europe,

and that is a public interest factor in the U.S. that is paramount.

The Denial Order also failed to consistently apply precede n t. The very significant benefit of

enhanced EMS and law enforcement rotorcraft capabilities was previously recognized by FAA as a

matter of public interest in granting two previous exemptions. This conclusion was reinforced by an

economic study performed by the Office of Aviation Policy and Plans. The Denial Order found, however,

that person s whose lives were saved by enhanced helicopter EMS capabilities were simply “customers”

of the 429, whose survival apparently provides “very minimal economic benefit to the overall public.”

This was clearly error.

Finally, the Denial Order makes recommendations and conclusions that run counter to public

policy and FAA’s overriding safety mission. The Denial Order sugg ests that it is preferable fo r operators

to remove safety equipment on the 429 to reduce weight rather than grant a gross weight exemption.

The sanctity of gross weight under Part 27 should not be elevated above any practical consideration.

Increasing the gross weight of the Bell 429 fr om 7,000 pounds to 7,500 pounds has no adverse

impact on safety. The number of occupants will not be changed and the helicopter is already certified to

operate at that gross weight. The exemption will permit EMS and law enforcement to operate with

greater flexibility and range, and will dri ve additional jobs to th e U.S. economy. These are public interest

factors as a matter of law. Accordingly, FAA should validate the 429 gross weight exemption granted by

TCCA, and rescind the Denial Order.

### 4 REGULATORY BASIS FOR GRANTING RECONSIDERATION

Section 11.101 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR § 11.101) requires a petition for

reconsideration to show that (a) there is a significant additional fact and why this fact was not presented

earlier; (b) FAA made an important factual error; or (c) FAA incorrectly interpreted a law, regulation, or

precedent. As summarized below, thi s Petition for Re consideration satisfies all three requirements of

section 11.101:

(a) Significant Additional Facts:

Competitive Impact

– The Denial Order reached conclusions about the competitive impact of

the exemption. The underlying data on which FAA relied was submitted by Bell’s competitors

on the final day of the Notice and Commen t period. Therefore, Bell did not have a procedural

opportunity to respond to these allegations by competitors, many of which were incorrect and

misleading. Bell believes that, had the additional facts and data presented in this petition been

available to FAA prior to the issuance of the Denial Order, th e Agency would have reached

different conclusions regarding competitive impact of the exemption.

Public Interest

– The Denial Order concluded that a gross weight exemption would not provide a

benefit to the public as a whole. The Petition for Reconsideration presents an expert report

from an EMS helicopter pilot descri bing in very specific terms how an increase in gross weight

would provide significant benefits to the public throughout the United States. Bell did not

provide such a report in its original petition because the public benefit of increased gross weight

for HEMS was recognized in prior exemptions granted by FAA. Since the De n ial Order casts

those prior findings in doubt, Bell has submitted additional evidence directed at this point.

Economic Impact

– The Denial Order rejected Bell’s claim that additional sales of the 429

resulting from the exemption would create additional U.S. jobs. FAA adopted the view

proposed by Eurocopter that the im p act on U.S. employment would be neutral regardless of

which competitor received the sales order, since the three major competitors are incorporated

outside the U.S. and each has U.S. facilities. The Eurocopter statement on which FAA relied was

submitted on the last day of the Notice and Comment period, so Bell did no t have a procedural

opportunity to reply. Eurocopter failed to disclose that it had only 876 employees in the United

States, and that the bulk of its manufacturing was completed by 12,500 employees in France

and Germany. Bell has 10,000 U.S. employees and 2,000 Canadian employees, and all

manufacturin g for the 429 is completed in the U.S. and Canada. Bell has also submitted an

economic impact analysis, prepared by a third party economist, confirming the significant

impact that granting the exemption would have on the U.S. economy. Bell believes that FAA

would have reached different conclusions regarding the im pact of the e xemption on U.S.

employment and the U.S. economy based on this data.

Safety

– The Denial Order did not reach any specific conclusions regarding safety, and it is not

clear from the Order whether the Agency accepted the findings of TCCA in this regard or simply

did not reach the issue. Because ther e were no specific findin gs on safety of the exemption, Bell

has submitted expert reports from an independent Engineering firm that reviewed the safety

aspects of the gross weight exemption. Bell believes these will assist FAA in making specific

findings on the safety issue.

### 5 (b) Important Factual Errors

– For reasons set forth more specifically below in the Petition for

Reconsideration, the following statements in the Denial Order are factually incorrect:

“This would present Bell Canada, Bell 429 operators, and their customers with an economic

advantage over their part 27 competitors since their competitors are limited to a 7,000 po und

MG W.”

“Comparable helicopters at a similar weight class that are part 29 certified would also be at a

disadvantage since they were required to meet more costly part 29 certification requirements.”

“Further, there are other normal category helicopters currently available in the market that can

achiev e similar operational capabilities proposed by Bell Canada that did not require an

exemption for increased gross weight.”

“Obtaining category A approval for the Bell 429 was strictly a Bell Canada business decision.

This decision enhances the marketability of the Bell 429 when compared to non

∙ category A

helicopters.”

“We agree th at jobs in the United States could be created with the sale of more than 300 new

helicopters. If there is a demand for that many helicopters, then helicopter manufacturers will fill

that need. Like Bell Canada, most of the non

‐ domestic manufacturers also have facilities in the

U.S. Therefore, we believe that jobs will be add ed r egardless of the manufacturer if there are

additional helicopter sales as suggested by the petitioner.”

“The FAA acknowledges that granting an exemption from § 27. 1 would probably increase the

potential usefulness of the Bell 429, to the current operators. However, we anticipate that th ere

will be ve ry minimal economic benefit to the overall public if the petition for exemption is

granted. We anticipate that most of the economic benefits will be realized only by Bell Canada,

Bell 429 operators, and their customers.”

“Other normal category helicopters accommodate similar type equipment. The availability of

these other pa rt 27 helicopters remains an option for operators.”

“The certification procedures for aeronautical products and parts together with the

airworthiness standards in the 14 CFR (Federal Aviation Regulations) are intended to establish

varying levels of safety for different aeronautical products. As these regulations developed over

time, the FAA has ba sed th e distinction between normal and transport category rotorcraft

certification requirements, in part, on the maximum certified gross weight of the aircraft. The

gross weight of aircraft provided a meaningful indication of the number of people and the

amount of cargo likely to be carried, as well as the design complexity an d performa nce

capabilities of the aircraft. At each stage of the incremental adoption of the airworthiness

standards in 14 CFR parts 27 and 29, the FAA met the procedural and legal burdens of

establishing a compelling safety rationale for each additional safety requirement. Parts 27 and

29 each establish an a ppropriate minimum level of safety for the design of nor mal and transport

category rotorcraft, respectively. The effect of granting Bell Canada's petition would be

tantamount to a de facto rulemaking action to amend part 27 by increasing its applicability

### 6 weight. In addition, the effect of a grant would be tantamount to exempting the Bell 429 from

the application of part 29.”

“The FAA has received a number of petitions for exemption to increase the gross weight of

specific helicopters to exceed the weight limitation of § 27.1. Typically, the FAA has denied these

requests. Th e FAA has only granted exemptions to § 27.1 in one situation, directly related to

rulemaking that increased the weight limitation for all part 27 helicopters.”

“The argument made by the petitioner that an increase in gross weight for the Bell 429 is needed

to accommodate the installation of safe t y enhancing equipment is not valid justification. An

increase in gross weight for any normal category helicopter would accommodate the installation

of additional safety enhancing equipment.”

“The exemption relief sought for the Bell 429 would, if granted, place the BelI 429 at a

competitive advantage to other rotorcraft over 7,000 pounds alr e ady required to meet part 29.

Said differently, the relief sought would, if granted, put existing part 29 rotorcraft manufacturers

at a competitive disadvantage owing to the greater costs to certify and produce their products.”

(c) FAA Incorrectly Interpreted a Law, Regulation or Precedent:

The Denial Order does not correctly interpret pr ecedent from prior Part 27 gross weight

exemption decisions, including McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems Exemption No. 6505

(Sept. 5, 1996), Agusta S.p.A. Exemption No. 6518 (Oct. 9, 1996), and Kaman Aerospace

Corporation Exemption No. 6433 (Apr. 25, 1996).

The Denial Order fails to consider the precedential impact of Amerifight, Inc

. Exemption No.

8480A (Apr. 21, 2006), finding that exemption requests are independent of ongoing regulatory

considerations.

The Denial Order does not correctly interpret and apply 14 CFR § 11.81, adding an additional

factor that is not in the regulation

The Denial Order does not correctly interpret 14 CFR § 27.1, denying the relevance of the 1999

amendment to the regula t ion adding passenger capacity as a defining element of Part 27.

The Denial Order effectively amends 14 CFR § 11.81 without following the Administrative

Procedure Act.

The Denial Order fails to consider and interpret the precedential impact of the Office of Aviation

Policy and Plan’s Preliminary Regu latory Evaluation, Reg ulatory Flexibility Determination, and

Trade Impact Assessment for Proposed Rule: Part 27 Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category

Rotorcraft Gross Weight and Passenger Limits

.

The Denial Order fails to address the Chicago Convention or the U.S.

‐ Canada Bilateral Aviation

Safety Agreement, or handle this as a validation request of an exemption already granted by

TCCA.

### 7 I. THE DENIAL ORDER COMMITTED ERRORS OF LAW IN IGNORING THE SAFETY AND PUBLIC

INTEREST DETERMINATIONS OF THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT

The Bell 429 was type certificated in 2009 by TCCA, the national authority overseeing

certification of this model. That type certificate was thereafter validated by FAA pursuant to the

Bilateral Aviation Safety A g reement (“BASA”) between the United States and Canada. It has also been

validated by a number of other countries pursuant to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the

“Chicago Convention”).

With FAA’s concurrence, Bell followed the same procedure in seeking an increased gross weight

exemption to the 429 type certifi cate, first seeking the exe mption from TCCA as the original type

certificating authority. TCCA conducted an extensive technical evaluation of the request and found that

the exemption was in the public interest and did not affect aviation safety. TCCA thereafter issued the

exemption, which thus far has been validated by eleven additional nati ons. TCAA submitted the

underlying exemption petition to FAA on behalf of Bell as a validation request.

As the type certificating authority for the 429, TCCA carefully reviewed the safety aspects of

granting an increased gross weight exemption and conducted a detailed risk assessment. TCCA

evaluated the relative safety of the 42 9 to other Part 29 rotorcraft, and determined that the 429 was

compliant with many more provisions of current Part 29 than the EC145, S76C and S76D. TCCA also

attached many conditions to the exemption mandating safety related equipment over and above the

requirements of Part 29. This mandatory equipme nt is not required to be installed on any other Part 29

rotorcraft as basic equipment and increases the level of safety of the 429 beyond these other Part 29

helicopters. Clearly, TCCA made a very thorough review of the safety implications of the exemption and

established beyond a shadow of a doubt the equivalent level of safety that is the standard for granting

Bell’s Petition

.

TCCA further determin ed that the exemption was in the public interest. The public interest

factors in both the United States and Canada are virtually identical. The benefits of improved range and

additional payload are as significan t to EM S and other helicopter operations in Canada as they are in the

United States. The critically injured patient in a remote area whose life can be saved by a 429 with a full

load of fuel is just as important to the American people as it is to the Canadian people. An increase in

429 sales wil l create more jobs in both countries and increase the global competitiveness of North

American products.

The United States and Canada have the world’s largest trading relationship and are parties to a

number of treaties designed to reduce trade barriers and encourage cooperation betwe en governmen t

agencies. These treaties are built on the concept of mutual trust and respect between regulators on

both sides of the border. This is particularly true with respect to airworthiness issues:

The underlying principle behind these Implementation Procedures is that

certification projects will be based on mutual trust by both authorities,

which will lea d to de sign acceptance in compliance with the importing

authority’s airworthiness standards. This process requires effective

communication between the FAA and TCCA. The exporting authority, as

delegated by the importing authority, makes determinations of

compliance with the importing authority’s certification basis. The

importing authority should be able to make findin g s of compliance,

### 8 without further showing, based upon the exporting authority’s

statements of compliance. 3

The airworthiness standards of Parts 27 and 29 under United States and Canadian law have

been harmonized and the standards for obtaining an exemption are identical under the laws of the two

countries. Canada has one of the largest civil aviation systems in the world, and Transport Canada is

highly regarded as a world leader in aviation safety. Indee d, the Unit ed Nations selected Canada as the

headquarters for ICAO.

While one of Bell’s competitors apparently does not hold TCCA in the highest regard, 4 Bell is

confident that FAA does not share that view. When reviewing a validation request from Canada, FAA

has always started from a presumption that the determinations made by an agency of the Government

of Canada are valid and appropriate.

The Denial Order, however, makes no attempt to identify any reason that dema nds FAA depart

from the international validation process. The omission in the Denial Order of any reference to the work

and findings of TCCA creates the unfortunate impression that FAA did not take this work into

consideration. For this reason alone, FAA should reconsider the Denial Order and clarify th at the work

of TCCA has been afforded the considera tion to which it is justly entitled.

II. THE DENIAL ORDER ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND FACT IN FAILING TO FIND THAT BELL

HAS MET THE SAFETY REQUIREMENT

A. The Denial Order Makes No Specific Findings as to Whether Bell Has Met the Safety

Requir eme nt of Part 11

The exemption provisions of Part 11 require that a petitioner demonstrate that an exemption

does not adversely affect aviation safety or is equivalently safe to the rule being exempted. The Denial

Order contains no specific discussion regarding the relative safety of the Bell 429 with an increased

weight of 50 0 pounds. The last paragraph of the Order states that Bell’s petition is being denied as “not

in the public interest”, so it would appear that FAA either accepted the safety findings of TCCA or

elected not to address safety and let the denial rest only on “public interest”.

B. The Safet y of th e Exemption Has Been Established by More than Substantial Evidence

There is no question that the Bell 429 can safely operate at 7,500 pounds. In fact, at 7,500

pounds, the Bell 429 still maintains its Category A, single

‐ engine performance. The rotorcraft was

designed and certified to operate at 7,500 pounds with an externa l load, so the ability of the helicopter

3 Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness Covering Design Approval, Production Activities, Export

Airworthiness Approval, Post Design Approval Activities, and Technical Assistance Between Authorities

Under the Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of

America for Promotion of Aviation Safety, at Section 3.0, para. a.

4 EADS claims in its public comment that Bell Canada was “forum shopping” when it first sought the

exemption from TCCA. This is a curious assertion, given that the 429 type certificate was issued by

Canada. The “forum shopping” allegation suggests that EADS’ leaders regard TCCA as insufficiently

competent or insufficiently objective to make an ind epend ent or appropriate determination. EADS is of

course free to express its own views. Bell strongly disagrees with any negative characterization of TCCA,

and does not believe such an opinion is held by FAA, EASA, or anyone else in the industry.

### 9 to carry this load was established to the satisfaction of TCCA and FAA at original certification. Prior to

granting the recent gross weight increase for internal loads, TCCA required Bell to conduct additional

certification testing and analysis to confirm compliance to the applicable requirements with the

additional 500 pounds internal gross weight. In other words, Bell has established, and TCCA has

accep t ed, that the structural components of the 429 meet the structural requirements necessary to

operate under the higher loads and stresses caused by the weight increase, and that aircraft handling

and performance are not adversely impacted. And, moreover, Bell has since had its engi neering work

indepe ndently reviewed. 5

FAA and TCCA currently permit a number of helicopter models to operate under Part 29 without

meeting today’s standards. If it is safe for these models to operate above 7,000 pounds without

meeting all the current Part 29 certification requirements, it cannot be unsafe for the Bell 429 to do the

same.

TCCA also ex amined the certification basis of the Bell 429 when compared to the certification

basis of the EC145, S76C, and S76D. Not only does the Bell 429 have the most advanced certification

basis of any certificated rotorcraft, it meets more than ninety

‐ seven percent of the current Part 29

requirem ents

, including flaw tolerance of composite structure, HIRF protection, flammable fluid fire

protection, and the latest requirements for transmissions and gearboxes. In addition, the 429 is the only

rotorcraft that has used the MSG

‐ 3 process in the development of its maintenance program. As a result,

the 429 surpasses the EC 145, S76C, and S76D in its overall compliance with current Part 29 standards.

This is best reflected in a comparison chart of the models, prepared by Transport Canada:

5 Investigative Report Bell 429: Analysis of Transport Canada’s Approval of Increase in Gross Weight is

appended as Exhibit “1”.

### 10 The chart above compares the Bell 429 to Part 29 requirements and to other models where

amendment levels differ. Not only does the chart show that the 429 exceeds the Part 29 certification

standards of three other Part 29 rotorcraft, it also shows that the 429 meets almost all the current

provisions of Part 29

.

C. With the Ad ditional Equipment Required by TCCA, the 429 Meets Part 29 or Provides

an Equivalent Level of Safety to Part 29 Requirements

The Bell 429 is certificated to higher standards than any other Part 27 rotorcraft in the world,

and this certification basis heavily overlaps with curr ent Part 29. Bell has had the certification basis of

the helicopter reviewed by an independent engineering firm, and they determined that the 429 meets

97.8% of current Part 29 requirements. 6

TCCA carefully reviewed those provisions of Part 29 that Bell did not currently meet and

imposed a number of conditions that would mitigate toward an equivalent level of safety. Bell 429’s

operating under the exemption in Canada must be equipped with Cockpit Voice Recorder/Flight Data

Recorder (CVR/FDR), Helicopter Terrain Avoidance and Warning Syst e m (HTAWS), radar altimeter, dual

auto

‐ pilot with coupled flight director capability (minimum three axes), and an appropriate and effective

bird repellent device or technology, such as forward flashing lights. The other nations that have

validated the TCCA exemption have imposed the same requirements.

This was a balanced approach by TCC A that raised the safety bar in certain areas above that

required for other Part 29 rotorcraft, with enhancements such as CVR/FDR, HTAWS, and radar altimeter.

This in turn offset certain Part 29 requirements the 429 could not meet without a major redesign, like

flaw tolerance of metallic structure. TCCA also required an effective bird re pellant te chnology as an

alternative means of complying with bird strike. Dual auto

‐ pilot with flight director capability enhances

the single pilot IFR capabilities of the rotorcraft to correspond with Part 29 requirements.

There are some Part 29 requirements that TCCA did not require Be l l to specifically demonstrate.

For example, a new Part 29 design must be subjected to certain additional endurance testing prior to

receiving a type certificate. The Bell 429 has now been in service for three years, however, so the design

has effectively been subjected to additional endurance testing. Part 29 also imposes certain ca bin

material, signage, and passenger emergency equipment requirements. TCCA conditioned the gross

weight exemption on a requirement that the passenger capacity of the 429 remain the same.

Therefore, passenger safety was not impacted by the exemption in any way that would call for the

installation of additional cabin eq uipm ent. TCCA did not require Canadian operators to install such

additional equipment.

Bell recognizes FAA’s concern that granting weight class exemptions could create precedent that

would erode the enhanced safety standards of Part 29. The 429 exemption request, however, would

not create such precedent. The 429 is so close to meeti ng all current Part 29 requirements that an

exemption would set a very high bar for other rotorcraft to meet. Any ship equipped and certificated to

the same standard as the 429 would, after all, exceed the current Part 29 compliance of models such as

the EC145, the EC155, and the S76. It is these grandfathered desi gns tha t set the lower end of current

Part 29 compliance.

6 Investigative Report Bell Model 429: Analysis of Compliance with FAR Part 29, appended as Exhibit “2”.

### 11 III. THE DENIAL ORDER ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND FACT IN FINDING THAT AN EXEMPTION

WOULD NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST

A. Precedent and the Agency’s Own Economic Analysis Establish that an Exemption

Would Provide Important Public Benefits

Bell’s petition provided a detailed analysis of how an increase in gross weight on the 429 wou l d

be extremely beneficial to the public, particularly in the ability to offer improved support for EMS

operations. A number of public comments received by FAA in support of Bell’s Petition also focused on

the benefits to EMS and other industries. As characterized in the Denial Ord er:

Other comm enters in favor of granting the exemption pointed to the expanded mission

or operational opportunities and increased safety margins for the Bell 429 the additional

500 pounds of allowed weight would provide. This includes, the capability to operate

under both visual flight rules and IFR, carry extra mission eq uipment an d additional

passengers (operational or patient). and carry additional fuel for longer range flights

(e.g., to service additional areas), extended on

‐ site loitering, and reduced en route

refueling during missions (for example, emergency medical services, law enforcement,

utility and gulf oil platform transport). A commenter also stated that added onboard fuel

also reduc es costs of enroute re fueling and noise abatement at airports used for

remotely managed fuel cache sites. Another commenter believes the current weight

restriction directly compromises the quality of patient care. A congressional commenter

encouraged the approval of the weight increase to increase service capability in a safe

and cost effective way, an d to serve his state’s constituents through air ambulance and

emergency medical service providers. 7

FAA previously determined that the improved utility to EMS and law enforcement providers was

in the public interest and cited this as basis for granting an increased gross weight exemption for the

Agusta 109:

An increase in the gross weight of the A109 will allow the helicopter to take off with a

full fuel load i ng. This will increase the range of the helicopter, allowing passengers to be

transported over longer distances. This increased distance will be of particular benefit in

rural areas where medical care is not immediately available, or in situations where a

patient must quickly be transported to a specifi c center for speci alized care. An added

benefit will be the ability to transport more than one patient at a time. This can be

especially beneficial in the case of an accident involving more than one person or in

situations where a family member needs to accompany a patient

. 8

The Agency made the same finding in granting a gross weight exemption for the MD900:

A 1,000

‐ pound increase in gross weight will result in improved mission performance

without causing a decreased level of safety to the pilot or passengers. FAA has

determined that this increase in gross weight will be of ben efit to th e public by allowing

7 Denial Order at 4.

8 Agusta S.p.A. Exemption No. 6518 at 6

‐ 7 (Oct. 9, 1996).

### 12 an expansion of the mission capability (improved payload, range, etc.) of this helicopter.

This should be particularly beneficial to operators of air ambulances, etc. 9

The determination was also made independently by FAA’s Office of Aviation Policy and Plans:

Another safety benefit, although not directly related to rotorcraft safety, is that the

7,000 pound part 27 rotorcraft would have a greater range for a given payload than

would a 6,000 pound part 27 rotorcraft. This factor is importan t for Emergency Medical

Services (EMS) rotorcraft which, typically, carry a considerable amount of fairly heavy

medical equipment (oxygen tanks, gurneys, etc.) plus the emergency medical person(s).

As a result, the current part 27 weight restriction limits the amount of fuel several EMS

rotorcraft models can carry, which, in turn, limits the i r ranges. An increase in the part 27

rotorcraft’s allowable weight would permit these EMS rotorcraft to carry more fuel

(and/or additional medical equipment) and, thereby, increase their ranges and/or

provide better emergency care for the victim. This increased range is particularly crucial

in the western United States where a vi ctim may have to be tran sported hundreds of

miles to the closest appropriate hospital. Finally, the increased allowable weight may

permit the transport of an additional victim

‐ an important consideration for more rapid

transportation of multiple accident victims

. 10

Unfortunately, FAA effectively reversed these prior determinations in the Denial Order:

The FAA acknowledges that granting an exemption from § 27.1 would probably increase

the potential usefulness of the Bell 429, to the current operators. However, we anticipate

that there will be very minimal economic benefit to the overall public if th e peti tion for

exemption is granted. We anticipate that most of the economic benefits will be realized

only by Bell Canada, Bell 429 operators, and their customers

. 11

This finding interprets “public interest” very narrowly. An exemption request, by its very nature,

relates to a specific model of aircraft, so the members of the public who will benefit from the exemption

are almost always the “operators” of the aircraft and their “customers.” Which of these terms describes

a critically in jured pati ent in a remote area whose life can be saved by a helicopter that can dispatch

with a full load of fuel or critical medical equipment? Based on the above noted similar exemptions

granted in the mid

‐ 1990’s, FAA formerly considered this person to be a member of the publ ic whose lif e

was a matter of public interest.

The Denial Order fails to distinguish between Bell’s “customer” ( e.g.

, an EMS operator) and

“members of the public” ( e.g.

, a critically ill or injured patient being transported by that EMS operator)

in determining where, and how, the public interest will be served by Bell’s re quested ex emption. Bell

9 McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems Exemption No. 6505 at 6 (Sept. 5, 1996) (emphasis added).

10 Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, and Trade Impact Assessment

for Proposed Rule: Part 27 Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft Gross Weight and

Passenger Limits, at 21

‐ 22 (APO

‐ 320 March 1997) (emphasis in original), is appended as Exhibit “3”.

11 Denial Order at 7.

### 13 does not believe it would be reasonable to exclude the interests of EMS patients and other helicopter

users from being part of the “public interest”. 12

B. The Denial Order Relies on an Incomplete Competitive Analysis

FAA’s denial of Bell’s petition places a great deal of emphasis on a finding that the requested

exemption would provide Bell with a competitive advantage in the helicopter marketplace. Specifically,

FAA states that granting the exemption:

would present Bell Canada, Bell 429 op erators, and th eir customers with an economic

advantage over their part 27 competitors since their competitors are limited to a 7,000

pound MGW. Comparable helicopters at a similar weight class that are part 29 certified

would also be at a disadvantage since they were required to meet more costly part 29

certification re q uirements. 13

These conclusions in the Denial Order are not correct, as Bell will demonstrate more specifically

below. Moreover, Bell does not believe that the competitive interests of other manufacturers equate to

“public interest” in the United States, since the competing manufacturers are located in Europe and

they employ a relatively small workforce in this cou n try. It should also be considered that FAA no longer

has the statutory authority to regulate competition between manufacturers. In 1996 Congress

specifically eliminated the “development of air commerce and the promotion of civil aeronautics” from

those matters that FAA may consider. 14

1. Eurocopter Already has a Competitive Advantage as a Result of Regulatory

Waivers

Any time FAA grants a regulatory waiver to a single party, the Agency is providing a competitive

advantage unique to that party. In 2001, FAA excepted Eurocopter Deutschland from having to meet

many current Part 29 requirements, including bir d strike or flaw tolerance on the EC145. Two years

later, FAA provided the same exception to Eurocopter France for the EC155. These regulatory waivers

clearly were not granted by FAA because it believed the bird strike or fatigue tolerance safety

regulations in Part 29 were unnecessary. Clearly, they were grante d because compliance with bird strike

and fatigue tolerance requirements would exact a significant weight penalty on the EC145 and EC155.

This would present engineering challenges that Eurocopter and FAA clearly decided were severe enough

to make these requirements impractical on the EC145 and EC155. The waivers afforded a very

significant competi t ive advantage to Eurocopter, since competing models that were subsequently

certificated had to meet bird strike and fatigue tolerance requirements and would consequently be

heavier. This is precisely the competitive advantage Eurocopter is attempting to preserve by opposing

an exemption for the Bell 429.

12 Bell has attached expert testimony by Mr. Larry Grandy, an experienced EMS helicopter pilot, detailing

the problems caused for EMS operators by the current weight restriction, and explaining many different

ways in which the requested 500 pound increase will enable EMS operators to save more lives and

conduct operations more safely. Mr. Gr andy’s exper t testimony is appended as Exhibit “4”.

13 Denial Order at 6.

14 Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104

‐ 264, § 401(a), 110 Stat. 3255 (1996)

(removing “developing” and “promoting” from the text of 49 U.S.C. § 40101(d)).

### 15 3. The Denial Order Has Already Helped Eurocopter Capture More of the Market

Within thirty days of FAA’s issuance of the Denial Order, Bell lost a major competitive bid for

sixteen light twin EMS helicopters. The order was awarded instead to Eurocopter. Prior to the denial of

Bell’s petition, Eurocopter claime d to FAA that a 429 gross weight exemption would be unfair, giving the

429 a competitive and economic advantage. Now that the exemption has been denied, Eurocopter

gleefully boasts in a press release that “over the last ten years, the EC135 has accounted for over 80% of

the light twin helicopters delivered to the U.S

. air medical industry.” 15 Clearly, FAA was not provided

with complete and accurate information when it made findings about the competitive impact of a 429

exemption.

4. Granting Bell’s Exemption Will Level the Playing Field

In practical terms, if FAA waives bird strike and fatigue tolerance on a Part 29 helicopter, there is

not a great deal of differe nce betw een an exempted Part 29 model and a helicopter certificated under

Part 27, particularly when an older Part 29 model is compared against a new Part 27 helicopter. This is

what TCCA found when it compared the 429, EC145, S76C, and S76D.

There is a well known product gap at the light end of Part 29, recognized by the Office of

Aviation Policy and Plans in a study published fifteen years ago:

Obtaining a part 29 type certificate for a relatively small rotorcraft (less than 8,000

pounds) is not, generally, an economically viable option because the cost of co mpliance

with the re quirements of part 29 is substantially higher than that of part 27

. . . . As a

result, only one manufacturer has built a part 29 rotorcraft with a maximum gross

weight less than 8,000 pounds. Consequently, there is a rotorcraft product gap between

the heaviest part 27 rotor c raft and the lightest part 29 rotorcraft. 16

Even though the 429 meets ninety

‐ seven percent of the current provisions of Part 29, to be

certificated as a Part 29 model, it would have to meet 14 C.F.R

. § 29.631 “bird strike,” 14 CFR § 29.571

“flaw tolerance of metallic structure,” and other Part 29 requirements, all of which would add significant

weight to the airframe. Th e end result for Bell, if it had to certificate the 429 as a 7,500 pound Part 29

helicopter, would be a ship that was considerably more expensive because of the additional

development and production costs and, therefore, no longer an economically viable option. The

additional airframe weight would also have a signifi cant im pact on performance.

Even at 7,500 pounds, the Bell 429 is at a competitive disadvantage to the EC145 by

approximately 300 pounds of available payload. Adding additional weight that compliance to Part 29

requirements would dictate means the 429 would have no wa y to effectiv ely compete against the

EC145, which does not have to meet bird strike or flaw tolerance. The economics of Part 29 certification

just will not allow a new model certificated under the latest standards to compete against a helicopter

operating with waivers under a thirty year

‐ old typ e certifi cate.

15 See Exhibit “3”

16 Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, and Trade Impact Assessment

for Proposed Rule: Part 27 Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft Gross Weight and

Passenger Limits, at 3

‐ 4.

### 16 In the final analysis, Bell’s petition for gross weight exemption on the 429 does exactly the same

thing as the exceptions already granted the EC145: allows the 429 to operate in an economically viable

way in the product gap at the lowest end of Part 29. Granting the exemption will not give Bell a

compet itive advantage. It will help to level the playing field.

5. The Exemption Would Not Give Bell an Unfair Advantage over Other Part 27 or

Part 29 Models

In order for the exemption to give Bell an economic advantage over Part 27 competitors, there

would have to be other Part 27 compe t itors currently restricted by the 7,000 pound MGW. There is only

one other Part 27 helicopter with a maximum gross weight of 7,000 pounds, and that is the Agusta 109.

The Agusta 109 entered service in 1975 at 5,732 pounds MGW. Over the past thirty

‐ seven

years, Agusta has rais ed the MGW by 1,268 pounds without significantly updating its certification basis

–

a gross weight increase of more than twenty percent of the original design weight. There is no evidence

before the Agency that Agusta could grow the weight of the model any further with its current design

. Presumably, Agusta would have to surrender the “grandfathering” advantage the A109 has, and bring

the certification of the model up to Amendment 40 before it would qualify for an exemption based on

the precedent of a 429 exemption.

The next two closest competitors to the 429 are the Eurocopter Deutschland EC135 and MD

Helicopters MD902. The s e twin

‐ engine rotorcraft have an MGW of 6,500 pounds. To the extent these

models are technically capable of growing 500 pounds and this weight growth would enhance the

performance of the rotorcraft, their manufacturers could do so now. They do not need a gross weight

exemption. If an incr ease in the gross weight of the 429 has the additional effect of forcing competitors

to make similar improvements they are already capable of making, then that is very clearly something in

the public interest and a reason to grant the exemption, not deny it.

The remainder of the current Part 27 r o torcraft fleet is considerably below 6,500 pounds. It is

very unlikely in the foreseeable future that technology will permit single

‐ engine models to approach

7,000 pounds and thereby be at a competitive disadvantage because of an increase to the gross weight

of the twin

‐ engine 429.

The ex e mption would not give a competitive advantage over competing Part 29 models, since

there are no competing Part 29 models other than the EC145. The next largest Part 29 model in weight

is the Eurocopter France AS365N3 at 9,370 pounds. This model is certified only to Amendment 16,

adopted in 1 978, and mee ts less of current Part 29 than the EC145. More fundamentally, the AS365 is a

much larger helicopter. There is no credible argument that raising the gross weight of a 429 from 7,000

to 7,500 pounds could have any competitive impact on a helicopter that weighs 9,370 pounds. If that

was the case, the EC145 at 7,900 poun ds would already cannibalize sales of the AS365 and Eurocopter

would not offer both products. Light twins and medium twins are different products serving different

markets. A heavier 429 will not have any more impact on medium twin and larger Part 29 heli copters

than the EC1 45 already exerts.

6. The Exemption Would Promote Safety and Innovation

One of the reasons FAA has previously granted exemptions is to promote new models that meet

the latest safety standards:

### 17 The MD900 is a helicopter that meets a later and more stringent regulation than many

other normal category helicopters. Meeting these anticipated increased design

standards has increased the level of safety and has also increased the gross weight to

near the 6,000

‐ pound limit assuming the payload capacity remains constant. 17

* * *

The K

‐ 1200 is a helicopter that meets later and more stringent regulations than many

other helicopters performing the same mission. The design changes required to meet this

increased level of safety have, in fact, driven the gross weight to the 6,000

‐ pound limit. A

500

‐ pound increase in gro s s weight will result in improved mission performance. 18

This conclusion is echoed in the economic analysis performed by the Office of Aviation Policy

and Plans:

The principal safety benefit of the proposed rule would derive from the relaxation of the

part 27 weight limitation. The FAA believes that this relaxation would encourage

applicants to take advantage of this new market by developi ng new part 27 rotorcraft

models that would incorporate safety improvements and would displace some older

part 27 type certificated models. As that evolution occurs, new rotorcraft model

certifications would be based on the most recent part 27 standards. Thus, the proposal

would likely improve the overall safety le vel of th e general rotorcraft fleet beyond what

it would have been in the absence of the proposal. 19

FAA has always shown flexibility in its approach to “grandfathering” updated models on top of

older type certificates, very frequently exempting the updated model from having to meet current

regulations. Bell does not take issue with the grandfathering process, but it would be bad policy to be

flexible with the type certification process as it applies to older type designs but be very ri g id when it

comes to exemption requests for new type designs. That gives considerable economic incentive to

continue offering old type designs instead of developing something new.

Eurocopter is actually a prime example of this process in action. It currently has five Part 29

models in pr oduction: EC 145, AS365, EC155, AS332, and EC225. These are all grandfathered on type

certificates issued between 1971 and 1983. Despite being the world’s largest helicopter manufacturer,

it is the only major manufacturer not to have certificated a new type design in the past decad e, and

currently is in the process of another update to an old type design with the EC145T2.

As a matter of policy, the exemption process should not be weighted to favor old designs over

new designs. If the exemption process is to be weighted at all, preference should be given to

exemptions that en c ourage manufacturers to develop new designs. That is properly in the public

interest.

17 McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems Exemption No. 6505 at 6 (Sept. 5, 1996).

18 Kaman Aerospace Corporation Exemption No. 6433 at 6 (Apr. 25, 1996).

19 Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, and Trade Impact Assessment

for Proposed Rule: Part 27 Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft Gross Weight and

Passenger Limits, at 20.

### 18 C. The Denial Order Should Have Considered the Impact of the Exemption on U.S. Jobs

“ So we have a huge opportunity at this moment to bring manufacturing back. But we

have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves

what you can do to bring jobs ba ck to your count ry, and your country will do

everything we can to help you succeed.” 20

The economic impact of the exemption on Bell’s competitors is not a matter of public interest.

The economic impact on the US economy and the creation of U.S. jobs, however, is very much a matter

of public interest and is highly relevant. Bell’s petition presented evidence that the exemption would

increase sales of the 429 and create a dditional jobs in the United States. The Denial Order declined to

consider this impact, assuming that additional sales demand would drive the same number of jobs to

the U.S. economy no matter which “non

‐ domestic manufacturer” sold the helicopter. This assumption

and conclusion was not cor rect and was not supported by evidence before the Agency

.

The Bell 429 has forty

‐ nine percent U.S. content, most of which is manufactured in Fort Worth,

Texas. In fact, Bell is one of the largest employers in North Texas. Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. and Bell

Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd. are both subsidiaries of Textron Inc., a U.S. company which is also the

parent of Cessna and Lycoming and is a backbone of the U.S. aviation industry.

Eurcopter has 876 employees in the United States and 200 in Canada. Bell has 10,000

employees in the United States and 2,000 in Canada. Yet, Euroc o pter delivered more helicopters in the

United States last year than Bell delivered on a worldwide basis. All those Eurocopter products sold in

the United States are not being manufactured by 876 U.S. employees. They are being manufactured by

Eurocopter’s 12,500 employees in France and Germany.

It is not Bell’s position tha t raising th e gross weight of the 429 by 500 pounds would expand the

overall demand for helicopters in the United States by several hundred ships. It is Bell’s position,

however, that the exemption will increase the number of 429’s sold. FAA clearly shares this view, since

the Denial Or der expresses considerable interest in the impact of the exemption on competing models,

all of which happen to be manufactured in France, Germany, and Italy. 21 The 429 is manufactured in the

United States and Canada. U.S. and Canadian workers will be building these helicopters instead of

workers in France and Germany.

Bell has provided a more detailed analysis of the economic impact of the exemption on sales of

the 429. With the gross weight exemption, Bell forecasts tha t it will sell more than 425 additional 429’s

between 2013 and 2031. The impact to the U.S. economy of these additional sales has been analyzed by

Dr. Loren C. Scott, an independent Economist. Dr. Scott projects that these additional sales will create

1,100 additional jobs in the United States. These additional jobs will, in tu rn, drive additional sales

throughou t the U.S. economy, creating a net positive impact of $4.6 Billion between 2013 and 2031 if

the exemption is granted. This is the direct result of moving high

‐ paying manufacturing jobs from

Europe to the United States. Dr. Scott’s report is attac h ed as Exhibit “6”.

20 2012 State of the Union Address.

21 The EC 135, EC 145, and AW109 are the closest competitors to the 429, and they are French, German,

and Italian helicopters. The MD900 is also a twin

‐ engine helicopter of similar weight and was made in

the US, but FAA records do not reflect any production of this model since 2009. Bell assumes it ha s

already succumbed to European competition.

### 19 IV. THE DENIAL ORDER HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON PUBLIC POLICY

A. The Denial Order Errs in Holding that the Line Between Parts 27 and 29 is Fixed and

Unyielding

The Denial Order adopts a policy view that gross weight must be an impenetrable dividing line

between regulatory classes that can on ly be crossed by rulemaking. This viewpoint is most vigorously

argued by EADS in its public comment, claiming that Bell is “not acting responsibly” by even seeking a

gross weight exemption for a Part 27 rotorcraft. It is not clear whether EADS believes that Agusta,

Kaman, and MD Helicopters acted responsibly when they applie d for exemptions for their products, or

whether FAA was acting responsibly when it granted them. It is also not clear whether EADS is

conceding that Eurocopter did not act responsibly when it applied for and received a Part 27 gross

weight exemption for the EC135 in Europe 22

. It goes without saying that the EADS view is not consistent

with Eurocopter’s actions, the actions of Agusta, Kaman, and MD, or the actions of FAA and European

regulators in granting those exemption requests.

If gross weight is an impenetrable regulatory barrier, then gross weight exemptions cannot be

granted, and FAA should not have granted them pr eviously to Agusta, Kaman

, and MD. 23 An attempt

has been made to distinguish these exemptions on the basis that they were granted on the eve of a

change in the Part 27 weight limit, but that would not be an accurate characterization. Exemptions

were granted to Agusta, Kaman, and MD three years before the rule was changed. Moreover, th e

exemptions were perma nently granted, with no provision for rescinding them if FAA elected not to

change the Part 27 limit. It is worth noting also that the 2006 exemption granted to Ameriflight

(Exemption No. 8480A) breached the “wall” between Parts 135 and 121 to permit an aircraft to be

operated above the 7,50 0 pound limi t for on

‐ demand operations. FAA did so in the face of opposing

comments that the line between 121 and 135 should not be blurred, noting that “there have been no

studies or analyses completed concerning the proposed changes.” 24

In 1996, FAA would never have taken the position that the gross weight limit change to Part 27

was a “done deal”. The fact is that the proposed rule was not even developed and published until nearly

two years after the exemptions were granted, and more than another year was taken up with publi c

comments and revisions. At any point in the process, a decision could have been made not to change

the weight limit. FAA has to view its precedent in light of what it knew in 1996

– three years before the

rule change process was completed. It cannot tak e the position that the r esults of this three

‐ year

process were irrelevant or pre

‐ ordained.

B. Focusing Exclusively on Gross Weight Ignores the Amended Regulation and Results in

a Decision that Places Form over Substance

The definition of “normal category rotorcraft” was expanded in 1999 to include not only gross

weight, bu t also number of occupan ts the rotorcraft can carry. The Denial Order is therefore incorrect

when it states that “the fundamental philosophy in the evolution of FAA airworthiness standards is a

22 See EC135 Type Certificate, attached as Exhibit “7”,

23 FAA also has granted exemptions from the weight limit for light sport aircraft, further demonstrating

that FAA does not consider a gross weight limit to be inviolate. E.g.

, Terrafugia Inc. Exemption No.

10072 (May 27, 2010); Indigenous Peoples Technology and Education Center, Inc. Exemption No. 10450

(Feb. 15, 2012).

24 Amerifight, Inc. Exemption No. 8480A at p. 2 (Apr. 21, 2006).

### 20 continued enhancement in safety with an accepted different level of safety based on gross weight .”

Since 1999, the dividing line between Parts 27 and 29 has been based on gross weight and passenger

capacity. This is an important and pragmatic regulatory change that should not be ignored.

Current FAA regulations permit a rotorcraft to operate at 7,000 pounds carrying eight

passengers without having to meet th e higher requir ements of Part 29. Adding fifty pounds to the gross

weight, however, would require a recertification under Part 29, even though the helicopter is carrying

the same number of passengers. It would be difficult to argue that this addi tional fifty pounds makes

the aircraf t any less safe or increases risks for the eight passengers. Of course, Bell recognizes that there

always to be a “line”, but the exemption process exists so that lines can be examined on a case

‐ by

‐ case

basis. Otherwise, rigid enforcement of every line le ads to unne cessary measures that hinder rotorcraft

development and harm aviation safety.

When Part 27 was amended in 1999 to add, for the first time, a maximum passenger capacity, it

gave the exemption process a common sense tool that goes to the heart of the distinction be tween

“normal” and “transport” helicopters

. The effect of this amendment must be considered. Bell’s

exemption request for the 429 does not seek any change in passenger capacity, and the capacity of the

rotorcraft still remains firmly within the definition of Part 27. Applying a common sense standard, if the

passenger ca pacity doesn’t cha nge, a relatively small percentage increase in gross weight is simply not

the type of change that justifies pushing the entire model into transport category certification.

C. The Denial Order Effectively Requires that an Industry Consensus or Rulemaking Be in

Progress in Order to Grant Bells Exemption Request

The Denial Ord e r is also in error by effectively requiring that a rulemaking proposing to increase

the Part 27 MGW must be underway, or that an industry consensus recommending such an increase

exist, before FAA can grant Bell’s request for a weight exemption. FAA’s procedural rules, 14 CFR §

11.81, require a petition for exemption to demonstrate only two factors in order to be granted: safety

and pu blic in terest. There is no requirement that a rulemaking be underway that will amend the

regulation to match the exemption being requested. Nor is there a requirement that an “industry

consensus” about the desirability or content of a rulemaki ng ha ve been reached. The Denial Order

effectively amends 11.81 to add a third element, without following the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Denial Order states that “[a]ny change to the current philosophy of rotorcraft airworthiness

standards needs to be done in a public forum.” 25 FAA later reiterates its position by confirming it “will

issue a notice in the future to seek public input to determine if 7,000 lbs is the correct MGW for part

27.” 26 As an initial matter, Bell submits that its exemption application, which was filed in a public docket

and which generated fifty

‐ eight comments from the public, is just such a public forum. Regardless, the

existence of a pending or contemplated rulemaking addressing the relief sought by an exemption is not

one of th e tw o factors FAA rules establish must be demonstrated to grant an exemption.

FAA has not, to Bell’s knowledge, previously required that a rulemaking be in progress in order

for an exemption to be granted under 11.81. Indeed, despite the Denial Order’s assertion that the

exemptions granted to Kaman, Agusta, and MD were “directly r elated to [a] rulemaking that increased

25 Denial Order at 6.

26 Denial Order at 8.

### 21 the weight limitation for all part 27 helicopters,” 27 no such rulemaking was in progress when these

exemptions were granted in 1996. As discussed elsewhere in this Petition, on April 25, 1996, FAA

granted Kaman an exemption from Part 27 to increase the weight of its K

‐ 1200 helicopter from 6,000

pounds to 6,500 pounds. On September 5, 1996, FAA grante d a second exemption from Part 27’s

weight restriction that authorized McDonnell Douglas to increase its MD900 helicopter weight from

6,000 pounds to 7,000 pounds. Less than a month later on October 9, 1996, FAA granted a third weight

increase exemption, this time to Agusta, which allowed it to increase its A10 9 heli copter series weight

from 6,000 pounds to 7,000 pounds. However, FAA did not issue the notice of proposed rulemaking

proposing the Part 27 weight increase until June 25, 1998, nearly two years after these exemptions were

granted. 28

The Denial Order also proposes that, if there is no rulemaking underway, there at least must be

industry consensus on the relief sought in order to grant an exemption. When addressing the public’s

input to Bell’s petition, the Denial Order states, “[c]omments did not indicate that the community at

large believes the 7,000 lb limit is inappropriate.” 29 The Denial Order also goes to great lengths to assert

that the only reason the three 1996 exemptions to the Part 27 weight limitation were granted is because

the “ARAC agreed that a gross weight limitation increase of part 27 to 7,000 pounds was appropriate.” 30

Again, abundant precedent and the Agency’s own rules demonstrate that such consensus is not a

prerequisite. Indeed, in a similar case involving an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (“ARC”)

recommendation, FAA made clear that a “grant of exemption stands on its own merit, as presented by

[the petitioner], not on the basis of the justifi cation or reco mmendation for general rulemaking by the

ARC.” 31

Bell respectfully suggests that, as a policy matter, FAA’s approval of exemption requests should

not be tied to the commencement of a rulemaking or an ARAC, ARC, or other industry recommendation

27 Denial Order at 7.

28 64 FR 45092 (Aug. 18, 1999) (citing the June 25, 1998, notice of proposed rulemaking). The

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b), provides that a rulemaking commences with the

issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) or an Advance NPRM where applicable. While

FAA did establish an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (“ARAC”) on Jan u ary 5, 1995, to discuss a

Part 27 weight increase, this did not comprise the initiation of the APA rulemaking process. See 60 FR

4221 (Jan. 20, 1995) (announcing the establishment of the Rotorcraft Gross Weight and Passenger Issues

Working Group (“GWWG”), which was a subgroup of the AR AC Rotorcraft Issues Gro up). As specifically

noted by FAA in its internal agency guidance, ARACs are authorized under the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2) (“FACA”) and not the APA. See FAA Office of Rulemaking, ARM

Committee Manual

, at 37 (ARM 001

‐ 015, Rev #38 (Sept. 12, 20 11). While an ARAC’s deliberations and

findings may prove useful to FAA in its later APA rulemaking process, the commencement of an ARAC

does not trigger the start of the rulemaking process. Even once an ARAC completes its consideration

and makes a recommendation to FAA, there is no guarantee that the reco mme ndation will ultimately be

adopted; the proposal must still be vetted by various levels within the Agency, a rulemaking proceeding

commenced, and public and inter

‐ agency comments considered.

29 Denial Order at 5.

30 Denial Order at 8.

31 Amerifight, Inc., Exemption No. 8480A at p. 7 (Apr. 21, 2006). Bell notes that an ARC is an aviation

deliberative body involving FAA and industry representatives created by statute that makes rule change

recommendations to FAA. Bell submits that, for purposes herein, there are no substantive differences

between an ARAC and ARC.

### 22 as to the desirability of a rule change. By binding the approval of an exemption to a rulemaking or

industry consensus, FAA will effectively eliminate exemptions in the majority of cases. This is contrary

to the intent of Congress, which, in providing for exemptions in the federal aviation statute, specifically

recognized that relief from existing regulations may be grante d upon a sufficient showing of safety and

public interest.

Bell also believes it would be imprudent to elevate industry consensus to the prominence it

seems to be given in the Denial Order. While industry consensus can certainly be relevant to a

regulatory ch ange, it has no proper place in the exemption process. The exemption process permits FAA

to seek public comment, which it did in this case. FAA received fifty

‐ eight comments, ninety

‐ three

percent of which favored the exemption. FAA should consider all of the public comments equally, not

just the four comme nts fr om industry competitors who opposed the exemption.

Industry consensus is a factor that is highly dependent on the needs of individual companies.

For example, back in the mid

‐ 1990s, MD Helicopters and Agusta vigorously argued in favor of gross

weight exemptions on the MD900 and A109 on grounds very similar to those presented by Bell. Fift een

years later, MD and Agusta vigorously oppose a gross weight exemption for a model that may compete

against the MD900 and A109. Their newfound opposition is very clearly driven by competitive concerns

rather than a change in philosophy.

The difference is this: in the early 1990 s there were five manufacturers with products in service

or under development who would directly benefit from an increase in the Part 27 gross weight limit:

MD (MD900), Agusta (A109), Kaman (K

‐ 1200), Bell (427), and Eurocopter Deutschland (EC135). In 2012,

only Bell is in this position. By dragging industry co nsensus out of the rulemaking process and over to

the exemption process, FAA risks abandoning its role as a neutral regulator in favor of something that

amounts to a popularity contest driven by the market position of individual industry players.

D. The Denial Order Does Not Correctly Characterize Agency Precedent

The Denial Ord e r asserts that FAA has received “a number of petitions” to increase the gross

weight of Part 27 helicopters, and that, “typically,” FAA has denied such requests. 32 The record indicates

that FAA has received a total of six other requests for Part 27 gross weight exemptions

– two for the

Agusta A109, two for the Kaman K

‐ 1200, and two for the MD900. Three of the six requests for

exemption from the weight restrictions were granted by FAA as be ing safe and in th e public interest. 33

Looking at the three petitions that were denied by FAA, two are very similar. In 1991,

McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Company (now MD) applied for a gross weight exemption on the MD900,

which was still under development at that time. The petition sought a weight exemption up to 20,000

pounds, and this was deni ed by FAA. Th e petition was thereafter resubmitted by MD in 1995, this time

seeking an exemption of 1,000 pounds. The second exemption was granted by FAA.

32 Denial Order at 7.

33 Kaman Aerospace Corporation Exemption No. 6433 (Apr. 25, 1996) (granting exemption for K

‐ 1200);

Airlink Exemption No. 5831 (Jan. 12, 1994) (denying exemption to Airlink for Agusta A109); Agusta S.p.A.

Exemption No. 6518 (Oct. 9, 1996) (granting subsequent exemption to Agusta for A109); McDonnell

Douglas Helicopter Corporation Exemption No. 5638 (Apr. 13, 1993) (denying exemption for MD900);

McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems Exemption No. 6505 (Sept. 5, 1996) (granting subsequent

exemption request for MD900).

### 23 In 1996, FAA granted an exemption to Kaman Aerospace for a 500 pound increase for the

K

‐ 1200. A second (2007) petition by Kaman for the K

‐ 1200 to increase the maximum gross weight by

nearly 100% to 12,000 pounds was denied by FAA without a detailed discussion. FAA referred the

petitioner ba ck to the 1991 MD denial discussed above.

The third petition denied by FAA was submitted by a single operator in 1993 for a gross weight

exemption on its Agusta 109 aircraft. This petition was not submitted by a manufacturer and, because it

applied only to a single ship, the pe titioner was not able to make an adequate showing of public

interest. Thereafter, a gross weight exemption was granted for all A109s in response to a petition from

Agusta.

The Denial Order incorrectly concluded that Bell’s petition “does not differ materially from other

petitions that have been denied”. Bell’s petition is re adily distinguishable from the denied petitions, and

virtually identical to the three that were granted to Agusta, Kaman, and MD. The denied petitions were

either by a single operator or for very large or undefined weight increases. In contrast, like the petitions

that were granted, this is a petition by the man u facturer for a modest and defined gross weight

increase. The public interest and safety considerations are almost identical. If precedent is to be

consistently applied, Bell’s petition should be granted.

E. Removing Safety Equipment to Increase Payload Is Not the Right Answer

It is currently possible for Bell 429 operators to seek and obtain a pproval for installation

of additio nal equipment, if the mission dictates. This could necessitate the removal of

some equipment to comply with the part 27 weight limitation. 34

In its standard configuration, the Bell 429 is certificated as a Category A rotorcraft and can

operate with a single pilot under Instrument Flight Rules. As FAA is aware, these are very important

safety enhancements. Category A certification means the rotorcraft has the redundant systems

necessary to continue operating safely on only one engine, which is critical if an engine is lost during

flight. Si ngle pilot IF R capability means the 429 can safely operate on instruments in visibility conditions

that would endanger a non

‐ IFR rotorcraft. This is particularly important to EMS operations that often

have to dispatch in marginal conditions to save a life.

It is true that Bell made a “business decision” to make these important safety features standard

in the 429, while the European manufacturers made a “business decision” not to make them standard

for their models

– and Bell is now having to pay the price for its safety

‐ enhancing “business decision.”

These additions certainly make the 429 heavier in its standard configuration than competing models,

but they directly drive an improvement in safety standards. Since safety is FAA’s overriding and primary

mandate, the Agency should encourage all manufacturers to make Category A and single pilot IFR a

standard feature. In refus ing to recognize the public interest in building these safety features into the

standard configuration of the 429, the Denial Order is fundamentally at odds with FAA’s principal duty to

promote aviation safety.

Bell also offers a number of optional features on the 429 that enhance rotorcraft safety, such as

radar altimeter, Terrain Collision and Avoidance Syst e m, and Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning

System. Some of these features are available as options on competing helicopter models. Some are

34 Denial Order at 7.

### 24 not. No matter what helicopter they are installed on, however, all these options add weight and reduce

useful payload. This means they reduce the ability to dispatch with as much medical equipment, or fuel,

or patients, or passengers. Because the 429 gross weight is limited by regulation, if exempted from that

limit, it could dispatch wi th a full array of safety equipment and a full payload. With the 429, an

operator does not necessarily have to make a choice between safety and payload. The Denial Order

rejects this potential, however, in favor of removing equipment to preserve the regulatory limit. This is

difficult to reconcile with the Agency’s fundame ntal safety mission. It is also difficult to reconcile with

the Agency’s current rulemaking activities. FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2010,

covering a series of new regulations aimed specifically at improving EMS safety:

From 2002 to 2008, there has been an incr ease in fatal helicopter air ambulance

accidents. To address these safety concerns, the FAA is proposing to implement

operational procedures and require additional equipment on board helicopter air

ambulances. Many of these proposed requirements currently are found in agency

guidance publications and would address National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

safety recom mendations. 35

These new regulations would include the installation of additional safety equipment such as

HTAWS. The Bell 429 includes HTAWS, CVR/FDR, and radar altimeter standard in the 7,500 pound

configuration approved by TCCA. FAA’s declared purposed in adopting these new regulations is “to

improve safety for air ambulance operations and other commercial helicopter operations.” Therefore, it

would be incorrect to cha r acterize Bell’s choice to raise the safety bar as not being in the public interest.

FAA has itself recognized the public interest the equipment serves.

35 FAA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 75 FR 62639 (Oct. 12, 2010)

.

# Exhibit “1”

### 10338 Miller Road

Dallas, TX 75238

Phone: 214-343-3811 ■ Fax: 214-343-3812

www.esi-website.com This report and its contents are the Work Product of Engineering Systems Inc. (ESI). This report should only be

duplicated or distributed in its entirety. This report may contain confidential or court protected information; please

contact an authorized entity prior to distributing. Conclusion s reached and opinions offered in this report are based upon

the data and information available to ES I at the time of this report, and may be subject to revision as additional

information or data becomes available after the date of publication.

Copyright 2012 Engineering Systems Inc. 

# Investigative Report

Bell 429: Analysis of Transport Canada’s

Approval of Increase in Gross Weight

ESI File 39465C

Report Prepared for:

Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd.

12,800 rue de l’Avenir

Mirabel, Québec

Canada J7J 1R4

Submitted by:

_______________________________________ September 27, 2012

Mark Allen Lewis, M.E., P.E.

Senior Consultant

Texas P.E. License Expires: September 30, 2013

Technical Review by:

_______________________________________ September 27, 2012

Robert C. Winn, Ph.D., P.E.

Chairman of the Bo ard, Principal & Director

‐ Aviation

Colorado P.E. License Expires: October 31, 2013

### Bell 429 TC Approval Analysis Page 2 of 9

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012



## Introduction

Engineering Systems Inc. (ESI) was retained on behalf of Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd. to

provide technical support relating to a Petition for Exem ption to increase the gross weight of the Bell

429 Helicopter.



## Background

Transport Canada granted the Bell 429 Type Certifi cate H-107 in June of 2009 as a Normal Category

Rotorcraft in accordance with Section V, Ch apter 527, Section 527.1(a) of the Canadian Aviation

Regulations (CAR). Certification on that basis is limited by the text of the cited section to rotorcraft with

a maximum weight of 7,000 pounds. For Transport Cana da to approve operation at the higher gross

weight of 7,500 pounds, the applicable regulations requi red that the Bell 429 be granted an exemption to

the gross weight limitation of Section 527.1(a). The gran ting of such an exemption required a change to

the rotorcraft’s Type Certificate. To support thei r exemption request, Bell He licopter Textron Canada

Limited (BHTCL) developed a certification plan to address the effect of the increased gross weight on

the limitations and performance of the rotorcraft, and to confirm that the gross weight increase would

not compromise rotorcraft safety. Transport Ca nada found the work performed by BHTCL in

accordance with that certification plan persua sive and the necessary exemption (No. 102-2011) was

granted in December of 2011.



## Resources

The activities engaged in to arrive at the conclusions stated in this report included review of the

pertinent Transport Canada regulatory documents, the Transport Canada Type Certificate Data Sheet

(TCDS), and BHTCL’s Report No. 429-099-156 (“Model 429 Ce rtification Plan Gross Weight Increase

to 7,500 Pounds”), as well as consultation with BHT en gineers. None of the conclusions expressed in

this report were based on ex amination of or testing of exemplar rotorcraft.



## Process

Under Canadian regulations, changes to the type desi gn of a certificated rotorcraft require approval by

Transport Canada. The regulatory basis for approval of such changes is Subpart 21 of Section V of the

CARs. Guidance regarding the procedure necessary to comply with the requirements of Subpart 21 is

provided by Transport Canada’s A dvisory Circular (AC) No. 500-016 (“Establishing the Certification

Basis of Changed Aeronautical Products”).

A critical parameter affecting the steps required to comply with the requirements of Subpart 21 is the

determination of whether the proposed change is or is not “significant.” AC No. 500-016 provides the

regulatory guidance necessary to make that determin ation by providing tables containing examples of

specific changes or categories of changes that were explicitly determined to be either “significant” or

“not significant.” The header of Table A.4.3 in A ppendix A of the cited AC reads “The following are

examples of not significant changes to rotorcraft.” The “Description of Change” column for Entry 5 in

that table reads “Expanded limitations with minimal or no design changes, following further

tests/justifications or different mix of limitations (CG limits, oil temperatures, altitude, minimum/

maximum weight, minimum/maximum exte rnal temperatures, speed, ratings structure).” The quoted text

clearly indicated that an expansion of the maximum weight limitation of a rotorcraft was considered to

### Bell 429 TC Approval Analysis Page 3 of 9

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012



### be a “not significant” change. As the change was deemed “not significant”, CAR 521 allows the

certification for the changed Type Certificate to be based upon standards of the same revision as those

used in the original Type Certificate.

The regulatory basis for the original Type Certificate issued by Transport Canada was Section V,

Chapter 527 of the CARs. That chapter was reviewed and the subset of those requirements likely to be

affected by the increase in gross weight was determined. The subset generated was compared to those

requirements of Chapter 527 a ddressed by the Compliance Ch ecklist found in BHTCL report

“Model 429 Certification Plan Gro ss Weight Increase to 7,500 Pounds” (Report No. 429-099-156), as

well as with the activities represented in that same report as necessary to comply with the regulatory

requirements applied to the proposed change. The regu latory requirements considered by the report are

listed in the table in Figures 1a-1e. The subjects addressed by the activities the report deemed necessary

are listed in the table in Figure 2.



## Analysis

The requirements contained in the Complian ce Checklist found in BHTCL Report No. 429-099-156

were consistent with the ESI-gene rated subset of Part 527 requirement s likely to be affected by the

change in the maximum gross weight proposed. Similarl y, the activities listed in that same report were

found sufficient to provide the necessary basis for th e regulatory requirements they were intended to

fulfill.



## Conclusions

The basis upon which Transport Cana da approved the change to the Bell 429 Type Certificate by

granting exception to the 7,000 gross weight limit of S ection 527.1(a) of the CARs was consistent with

the applicable regulatory requirements and include d consideration of all of the requirements of

Section V, Chapter 527 of the CARs likely to be af fected by the increase in maximum gross weight

proposed. In addition, the items addressed in the Compliance Ch ecklist in Bell Report No. 429-099-156,

and the activities identified in that same report as nece ssary to evaluate the effect of the increased weight

on the rotorcraft’s performance and regulatory compliance, were found sufficient to support the

conclusion that the proposed in crease in maximum gross weight from 7,000 pounds to 7,500 pounds (an

increase of 7.1%) was unlikely to adversely affect rotorcraft safety.

### Bell 429 TC Approval Analysis Page 4 of 9

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Figure 1a Regulatory Requirements Considered

Subchapter Section Description Amendment

527 1 a. Prescribes the airworthiness standards 27

‐ 37

527 1 b. Part 21 requires compliance with this part 27

‐ 37

527 1 c. Multi

‐ engine rotorcraft 27

‐ 37

527 21 Proof of compliance at each weight & e.g. 27

‐ 21

527 21 a. Compliance by tests or by calculations 27

‐ 21

527 21 b. Compliance by systematic investigation 27

‐ 21

527 25 a. Weight limits, max. weight 27

‐ 44

527 27 a. C. G. limits fore & aft & lateral selected 27

‐ 2

527 27 b. C. G. extremes within struct. limits 27

‐ 2

527 27 c. C. G. limits within flight tested 27

‐ 2

527 31 Removable ballast may be used 27

‐ 0

527 33 a. Main rotor speed limits 27

‐ 14

527 33 b. Normal main rotor high pitch limit (power on) 27

‐ 14

527 33 c. Normal main rotor low pitch limit (power off) 27

‐ 14

527 45 a. Performance general. ISA 27

‐ 21

529 45 a. Performance general, ISA, CAT A 29

‐ 24

529 45 b.2. Compliance with performance req. CAT A 29

‐ 24

527 49 a. Performance at minimum operating speed. 27

‐ 44

529 49 a. Performance at Min. Operating Speed, CAT A 29

‐ 39

527 51 Take

‐ off: General 27

‐ 44

529 51 Take

‐ off data: general, CAT A 29

‐ 39

529 53 a. Take

‐ off: Engine failure, rejected T/O, CAT A 29

‐ 39

529 53 b. Takeoff: Engine failure, continued T/O, CAT A 29

‐ 39

529 55 a. T/O Decision Point (TDP): definition, CAT A 29

‐ 39

529 55 b. TDP: designated by two parameters, CAT A 29

‐ 39

529 55 c. TDP: pilot recognition time Interval, CAT A 29

‐ 39

529 59 a. Take

‐ off path: determination procedure, CAT A 29

‐ 44

529 59 b. Take

‐ off path: VTOSS up to 200ft, CAT A 29

‐ 44

529 59c. Take

‐ off path: 200ft up to 1000ft., CAT A 29

‐ 44

529 59 d. Take

‐ off path: level path, CAT A 29

‐ 44

529 59 e. Take

‐ off path: distance, CAT A 29

‐ 44

529 60 Elevated heliport take

‐ off path: CAT A 29

‐ 39

529 61 a. Take

‐ off distance: CAT A 29

‐ 39

529 61 b. Take

‐ off distance: elevated pad, CAT A 29

‐ 39

529 62 Rejected take

‐ off: CAT A 29

‐ 44

529 64 Climb: general, CAT A 29

‐ 39

527 65 b. Climb performance, all engines operational 27

‐ 33

529 65 a. Steady rate of climb, AEO, CAT A 29

‐ 39

527 67 Climb performance, OEI 27

‐ 23

529 67 a. Climb: One

‐ engine

‐ inoperative (OEI) CAT A 29

‐ 44

### Bell 429 TC Approval Analysis Page 5 of 9

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Figure 1b Regulatory Requirements Considered (continued)

Subchapter Section Description Amendment

527 75 a. Landing performance, general 27

‐ 44

527 75 b. Power failure, safe landing

‐ multi

‐ engine 27

‐ 44

529 75 a. Landing, general, CAT A 29

‐ 39

529 75 b. Landing data determination, CAT A 29

‐ 39

529 77 Landing Decision Point (LOP): CAT A 29

‐ 44

529 79 a. Landing performance, CAT A 29

‐ 39

529 79 b. Power failure conditions, CAT A 29

‐ 39

529 81 Landing distance: CAT A 29

‐ 44

529 85 a. Balked Landing: smooth transition, CAT A 29

‐ 44

529 85 b. Balked Landing: safe climb

‐ out, CAT A 29

‐ 44

529 85 c. Balked Landing: descent below 15ft, CAT A 29

‐ 44

527 87 a. Limiting height

‐ speed envelope 27

‐ 44

527 87 b. Power failure conditions 27

‐ 44

529 87 a. Height

‐ velocity envelope: CAT A 29

‐ 39

527 141 a. Flight characteristics, general 27

‐ 21

527 143 a. Controllability & maneuverability. 27

‐ 44

527 143 b. Margin of cyclic at Vne 27

‐ 44

527 143 c. Wind velocity => 17 knots, IGE 27

‐ 44

527 143 d. Wind velocity => 17 knots, OGE 27

‐ 44

527 143 e. After failure of one engine 27

‐ 44

527 143 f.1. Slowing from Vne (power

‐ on) to Vne(power

‐ off) 27

‐ 44

527 143 f.2. Margin of cyclic cont. at 1.1 Vne (power

‐ off) 27

‐ 44

527 171 Stability: general 27

‐ 0

527 173 a. Static long. stab., control move. vs trim spd 27

‐ 44

527 173 b. Control position slope vs speed curve 27

‐ 44

527 175 a. Demo. static longitudinal stability, climb 27

‐ 44

527 175 b. Demo. static longitudinal stability, cruise 27

‐ 44

527 175 c. Demo. static long. stability, VNE 27

‐ 44

527 175 d. Demo. static long. stability, autorotation 27

‐ 44

527 177 Static directional stability 27

‐ 44

527 231 Ground handling, general 27

‐ 0

527 241 Ground resonance 27

‐ 0

527 261 Vibration 27

‐ 0

527 301 a. General, loads: strength requirements 27

‐ 0

527 301 b. General, loads: loading conditions 27

‐ 0

527 301 c. General, loads: effect of deflections 27

‐ 0

527 303 Factor of safety 27

‐ 0

527 305 a. Strength & deformation, limit load 27

‐ 0

527 305 b. Strength & deformation, ultimate load 27

‐ 0

527 307 a. Proof of struct., critical loading condition 27

‐ 26

### Bell 429 TC Approval Analysis Page 6 of 9

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Figure 1c Regulatory Requirements Considered (continued)

Subchapter Section Description Amendment

527 307 b.1. Proof of struct., dyn. & end. tests of rotor 27

‐ 26

527 307 b.4. Proof of str., flight stress measurement test 27

‐ 26

527 307 b.5. Proof of structure, landing gear drop tests 27

‐ 26

527 309a. Design limitations, max. weights 27

‐ 0

527 309 c. Design limitations, max. forward speed 27

‐ 0

527 309 d. Design lim., max. rear

‐ & sideward speeds 27

‐ 0

527 309 e. Design limitations, C.G. limits 27

‐ 0

527 309 g. Design limit maneuvering load factors 27

‐ 0

527 321 a. Flight loads: general, factors 27

‐ 11

527 321 b. Flight loads, conditions for wts & loads dist 27

‐ 11

527 337 Limit maneuvering load factor 27

‐ 26

527 339 Resultant limit maneuvering loads 27

‐ 11

527 341 Gust loads 27

‐ 0

527 351 Yawing conditions 27

‐ 34

527 391 Control system & surface loads 27

‐ 34

527 411 a. Ground clearance, tail rotor 27

‐ 0

527 411 b. Ground clearance, tail rotor guard 27

‐ 0

527 471 a. Ground loads, general, equilibrium 27

‐ 0

527 471 b. Critical centers of gravity 27

‐ 0

527 473 Ground loading conditions & assumptions 27

‐ 2

527 501 Ground loading condo : L.G. with skids 27

‐ 26

527 521 Water loads: float landing conditions 27

‐ 0

527 547 c. Main rotor structure, loads 27

‐ 3

527 547 d. Main rotor structure, loads during ground op. 27

‐ 3

527 547 e. Main rotor structure, limit torque 27

‐ 3

527 549 a. Fuselage UG & pylon structure, loads 27

‐ 3

527 549 b. Fuselage L/G & pylon str., aux. rotor thrust 27

‐ 3

527 549 c. Fuselage UG & pylon str., engine 27

‐ 3

527 549 d. Fuselage & pylon structure, engine mount 27

‐ 3

527 561 a. Emergency landing conditions, general 27

‐ 32

527 561 b. Emergency landing load factors 27

‐ 32

527 561 c. Emergency landing, retention of items 27

‐ 32

527 561 d. Emergency landing, ultimate loads, fuel tanks 27

‐ 32

527 571 a. Fatigue evaluation of structure, general 27

‐ 26

527 571 b. Fatigue tolerance evaluation 27

‐ 26

527 571 c. Replacement time evaluation 27

‐ 26

527 571 d. Fail

‐ safe evaluation 27

‐ 26

527 571 e. Combination of replacement time & fail

‐ safe 27

‐ 26

527 629 Flutter 27

‐ 26

527 661 Rotor blade clearance 27

‐ 2

### Bell 429 TC Approval Analysis Page 7 of 9

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Figure 1d Regulatory Requirements Considered (continued)

Subchapter Section Description Amendment

527 663 a. Ground resonance, prevention 27

‐ 26

527 663 b. Ground resonance, variation during service 27

∙ 26

527 675 d. Control stops, main rotor blades 27

‐ 16

527 691 Autorotation control mechanism 27

‐ 0

527 723 Shock absorption tests 27

‐ 0

527 725 Limit drop test 27

‐ 0

527 727 Reserve energy absorption drop test 27

‐ 26

527 771 c. Pilot compartment, vibration & noise 27

‐ 0

527 901 c. Powerplant installation, general 27

‐ 23

529 903 b. Engine isolation: Cat A 29

‐ 36

527 907 a. Engine vibration, prevent harmful vibration 27

‐ 0

527 907 c. Engine vibration, rotor drive vibration 27

‐ 0

527 939 b. Turbine eng. op. charact's, air inlet distort 27

‐ 11

527 1091 a. Air induction, supply air required 27

‐ 23

527 1093 b.1.i. Induction sys. icing prot., turbine 27

‐ 23

527 1093 b.2. Induction sys. icing prot., idle 30 min. 27

‐ 23

527 1301

‐ 1 Rotorcraft Ops After Ground Cold Soak

‐

527 1317 a. HIRF Protection 27

‐ 42

527 1317 b. HIRF protection 27

‐ 42

527 1317 c. HIRF protection 27

‐ 42

527 1501 a. Operating limitations & information, general 27

‐ 14

527 1501 b. Operating limitations & information, RFM 27

‐ 14

527 1503 Airspeed limitations: general 27

‐ 0

527 1505 a. Never

‐ exceed speed, relation to max. speeds 27

‐ 21

527 1505 b. Never

‐ exceed speed, variation alt/rpm/temp/wt 27

‐ 21

527 1505 c. Never

‐ exceed speed, power

‐ off 27

‐ 21

527 1509 a. Rotor speed, max. power

‐ off 27

‐ 0

527 1509 b. Rotor speed, min. power

‐ off 27

‐ 0

527 1509 c. Rotor speed, min. power

‐ on 27

‐ 0

527 1519 Weight & center of gravity

‐

527 1527 Maximum operating altitude 27

‐ 14

527 1529 Instructions for continued airworthiness 27

‐ 18

527 1581 a. RFM, general, furnishing Information 27

‐ 14

527 1581 b. RFM, general, approved information 27

‐ 14

527 1581 d. RFM, general, table of contents 27

‐ 14

527 1583 a. RFM, operating limitations, airspeed & rotor 27

‐ 16

527 1583 c. RFM, operating limitations, wt. & loading 27

‐ 16

527 1583 g. RFM, operating limitations, altitude 27

‐ 16

527 1585 a. RFM, operating procedures, normal & emergency 27

‐ 21

527 1587 a.1. Performance information, H V envelope 27

‐ 44

### Bell 429 TC Approval Analysis Page 8 of 9

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Figure 1e Regulatory Requirements Considered (continued)

Subchapter Section Description Amendment

527 1587 a.2.i Performance information, hovering ceiling 27

‐ 44

527 1587 a.2.ii. Performance information, max safe wind 27

‐ 44

527 1587 b.1 Performance information, take

‐ off related 27

‐ 44

527 1587 b.2 Performance information, landing related proc 27

‐ 44

529 1587 a. Performance information, CAT A 29

‐ 51

527 1589 Loading information 27

‐ 0

527 8884 A27.4 Instr. for Continued Airworth., limitations 27

‐ 24

527 9970 B.I IFR, General 27

‐ 19

527 9971 B.II.a Vyi Instrument climb speed 27

‐ 19

527 9972 B.II.b Vnei IFR Vne 27

‐ 19

527 9973 B.II.c Vmini IFR Vmin 27

‐ 19

527 9974 B.III Trim 27

‐ 19

527 9975 B.IV.a. Static long. stability, General 27

‐ 19

527 9976 B.lV.b. Single pilot, Climb 27

‐ 19

527 9977 B.IV.b. Single pilot, Cruise 27

‐ 19

527 9978 B.IV.b. Single pilot, Slow cruise 27

‐ 19

527 9979 B.IV.b. Single pilot, Descent 27

‐ 19

527 9980 B.IV.b. Single pilot, Approach 27

‐ 19

527 9982 B.V. Static lateral

‐ directional stab., trim 27

‐ 44

527 9983 B.VI Dynamic stability 27

‐ 19

527 9984 B.VII.a Stability Augmentation System (SAS) 27

‐ 44

527 9988 B.lX.a. RFM, Limitations 27

‐ 19

527 9990 B.IX.c. RFM, Performance 27

‐ 19

527 9991 App C 527.1 Criteria for Category A

‐ General 27

‐ 33

527 9992 App C 527.2 Applicable part 29 sections. 27

‐ 33

527 10990 D27.1

‐ Appendix D / Part 27

‐ HIRF 1317 27

‐ 42

527 10991 D27.2

‐ Appendix D / Part 27

‐ HIRF 1317

‐

527 10992 D27.3 Appendix D / Part 27

‐ HIRF 1317

‐

527 10993 D27.4 Appendix D / Part 27

‐ HIRF 1317

‐

527 10994 D27.5 Appendix D/ Part 27 ∙ HIRF 1317

‐

527 10995 D27.6 Appendix D I Part 27

‐ HIRF 1317 27

‐ 42

527 51600 SubCh. A 516.5 : Noise Emission Standards (f) Ch. 8

‐

527 51600 SubCh. B 516.7: Noise Evaluation Methods (b) App.2.4

‐

### Bell 429 TC Approval Analysis Page 9 of 9

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Figure 2 Subjects Addressed

Subject Report No.

Model 429 Structural Design Criteria 429

‐ 930

‐ 001

Model 429 External Design Loads 429

‐ 930

‐ 002

Model 429 Internal Design Loads 429

‐ 930

‐ 003

Model 429 Airframe Structural Analysis 429

‐ 930

‐ 004

Model 429 Engine Mounts and Fixed Equipment Analysis 429

‐ 930

‐ 005

Model 429 Landing Gear Structural Analysis 429

‐ 930

‐ 006

Model 429 Fatigue Methodology Plan 429

‐ 099

‐ 040

Fatigue Life Substantiation of Dynamically Loaded Components 429

‐ 099

‐ 535

Main Rotor Hub and Blade Structural Analysis 429

‐ 930

‐ 009

Pylon Support Static Structural Analysis 429

‐ 930

‐ 011

Occupant Safety and Environmental Systems

‐

Model 429 Engine Air Induction System 429

‐ 960

‐ 006

Model 429 Engine Air Induction System Icing 429

‐ 960

‐ 008

Model 429 Engine and Transmission Oil Cooling Loss of Forced Air 429

‐ 960

‐ 025

Engine Air Induction Snow Test

‐

Propulsion System Cooling

‐

Fuel and Hydro

‐ Mechanical Systems

‐

Avionics and Electrical Systems

‐

Demonstration of HIRF Compliance to AWM 527.1317 by Similarity to EASA

CS

‐ 27 Special Condition F

‐ 01. 429

‐ 905

‐ 095

Flight Test: Handling Qualities Test Plan/Report 429

‐ 993

‐ 001

Flight Test: Performance Test Plan/Report 429

‐ 993

‐ 002

Flight Test: Category A

‐ Runway 429

‐ 993

‐ 003

Flight Test: Category A

‐ Helipad 429

‐ 993

‐ 004

Flight Load Level Survey 429

‐ 099

‐ 007

Dynamic Components Cold Weather Survey 429

‐ 991

‐ 011

Engine Vibration Survey 429

‐ 909

‐ 001

Drive System Vibration Survey 429

‐ 909

‐ 003

Ground Resonance, Air Resonance, and Forward Flight Aeromechanical

Stability Substantiation 429

‐ 909

‐ 004

Noise Compliance Test Plan of the Model 429 7,500 lbs IGW Configuration 429

‐ 993

‐ 022

Noise Certification Compliance of the Model 429 7,500 lbs IGW Configuration 429

‐ 993

‐ 023

Rotorcraft Flight Manual Supplement BHT

‐ 429

‐ FMS

‐ 11

Maintenance Manual BHT

‐ 429

‐ MM

‐ 1

# Exhibit “2”

### 10338 Miller Road

Dallas, TX 75238

Phone: 214-343-3811 ■ Fax: 214-343-3812

www.esi-website.com This report and its contents are the Work Product of Engineering Systems Inc. (ESI). This report should only be

duplicated or distributed in its entirety. This report may contain confidential or court protected information; please

contact an authorized entity prior to distributing. Conclusion s reached and opinions offered in this report are based upon

the data and information available to ES I at the time of this report, and may be subject to revision as additional

information or data becomes available after the date of publication.

Copyright 2012 Engineering Systems Inc. 

### Investigative Report

Bell Model 429: Analysis of

Compliance with FAR Part 29

ESI File 39465C

Report Prepared for:

Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd.

12,800 rue de l’Avenir

Mirabel, Québec

Canada J7J 1R4

Submitted by:

_______________________________________ September 27, 2012

Mark Allen Lewis, M.E., P.E.

Senior Consultant

Texas P.E. License Expires: Septe mber 30, 2013

Technical Review by:

_______________________________________ September 27, 2012

Robert C. Winn, Ph.D., P.E.

Chairman of the Board, Principal & Director

‐ Aviation

Colorado P.E. License Expires: October 31, 2013

### Bell 429 Compliance Analysis Page 2 of 6

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012



## Introduction

Engineering Systems Inc. (ESI) was retained on behalf of Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd. to

provide technical support relating to a Petition for Exem ption to increase the gross weight of the Bell

429 Helicopter.



## Support Provided

The technical support provided by ESI consisted of providing an independent determination of those

requirements of Part 29 applicable to the Bell 429 and, of those app licable requirements, which were

met by the existing rotorcraft.



## Resources

The analysis performed was based on FAR Part 29 with Amendment 29-0 through 29-51, excluding

29-50 - CV/FDR. Compliance of the existing rotorcraft with each applicable Part 29 requirement was

determined by a combination of consultation w ith BHT engineers and review of BHT-provided

documents pertinent to certification of the 429. None of the conclusions expressed in this report

regarding compliance of the existing rotorcraft with the requirements of Part 29 were based on

examination of exemplar rotorcraft.



## Process

Each requirement of Part 29 was reviewed and determined to be either applicable or inapplicable to the

Bell 429. The applicable subset of Part 29 requirements was then comp ared to the requirements of FAR

Part 27, the Normal Category Rotorcraft part of the FARs to which the Bell 429 was certified by the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 2009. Those applicable requirements of Part 29 that were

either textually identical to the corresponding requirem ents of Part 27 or were identical in the required

characteristics or performance communicated by the corresponding requirements of Part 27 were

deemed complied with by the existing rotorcraft by virtue of its current certification by the FAA to

Part 27.

For the applicable requirements of Part 29 that were not determined to be equivalent to corresponding

requirements in Part 27 by textua l inspection, compliance or non-compliance of the existing rotorcraft

with those requirements was determined by review of documents provided by BHT, by consultation

with BHT engineers, or both.

The materials provided by BHT and consultations w ith BHT engineers yielded one of three different

conclusions regarding compliance of the existing rotorcraft with each and every applicable requirement

of Part 29; compliant, partially-compliant, or non-compliant. Absent defi nitive documentation or

confirmation by BHT that the existing Model 429 met a particular Part 29 requirement, the rotorcraft

was assumed to be non-compliant with the requirement in question. Only those requirements with which

the rotorcraft was determined to be compliant were considered in calculation of the percentage of the

Part 29 requirements met by the existing rotorcraft.

### Bell 429 Compliance Analysis Page 3 of 6

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012



## Conclusions

The results of the assessment pr ocedure described above indicated that the Bell 429, as it currently

exists, is compliant with 97.9% of the requirement s of FAR Part 29 (Amendment 29-0 through 29-51,

excluding 29-50 - CV/FDR). That percentage is based on compliance with 1734 of the 1772 Part 29

requirements applicable to the subject rotorcraft. T hose requirements of Part 29 with which the Bell 429

as it currently exists was determined to be non-comp liant are listed in table form in Figures 1a-1c.

Similarly, those requirements of Part 29 for which the rotorcraft was found to be partially-compliant are

listed in table form in Figure 2. Where the title of the section applicable to the requirement addressed

lacked sufficient detail to convey the sense of the re quirement, the total text of the section was included

in the table entry. Taken together, the requirements identified in Figures 1a-1c and 2 constitute a

complete list of those requirement s of Part 29 with which the foregoing analysis found the existing

rotorcraft to be less than fully compliant.

Figure 1a: Non

‐ Compliant

§ 29.341 Gust loads. Each rotorcraft must be designed to withstand, at each critical airspeed including

hovering, the loads resulting from vertical and horizontal gusts of 30 feet per second.

§ 29.631 Bird strike. The rotorcraft must be designed to ensure capability of continued safe flight and

landing (for Category A) or safe landing (for Category B) after impact with a 2.2-lb (1.0 kg) bird when the

velocity of the rotorcraft (relative to the bird along the flight path of the rotorcraft) is equal to VNEor

VH(whichever is the lesser) at altitudes up to 8,000 feet. Compliance must be shown by tests or by analysis

based on tests carried out on sufficiently representative structures of similar design.

§ 29.671 General. (c) A means must be provided to allow full control movement of all primary flight

controls prior to flight, or a means must be provided that will allow the pilot to determine that full control

authority is available prior to flight.

§ 29.783 Doors. (e) There must be means for direct visual inspection of the locking mechanism by

crewmembers to determine whether the external doors (including passenger, crew, service, and cargo doors)

are fully locked. There must be visual means to signal to appropriate crewmembers when normally used

external doors are closed and fully locked.

§ 29.783 Doors. (h) Nonjettisonable doors used as ditching emergency exits must have means to enable

them to be secured in the open position and remain secure for emergency egress in sea state conditions

prescribed for ditching.

§ 29.811 Emergency exit marking. (d) Each passenger emergency exit marking and each locating sign

must have white letters 1 inch high on a red background 2 inches high, be self or electrically illuminated, and

have a minimum luminescence (brightness) of at least 160 microlamberts. The colors may be reversed if this

will increase the emergency illumination of the passenger compartment.

§ 29.811 Emergency exit marking. (f) Each emergency exit, and its means of opening, must be marked

on the outside of the rotorcraft. In addition, the following apply:

§ 29.811 Emergency exit marking. (1) There must be a 2-inch colored band outlining each passenger

emergency exit, except small rotorcraft with a maximum weight of 12,500 pounds or less may have a 2-inch

colored band outlining each exit release lever or device of passenger emergency exits which are normally

used doors.

### Bell 429 Compliance Analysis Page 4 of 6

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Figure 1b: Non

‐ Compliant (continued)

§ 29.812 Emergency lighting. For transport Category A rotorcraft, the following apply: (b) Exterior

emergency lighting must be provided at each emergency exit. The illumination may not be less than 0.05 footcandle (measured normal to the direction of incident light) for minimum width on the ground surface, with

landing gear extended, equal to the width of the emergency exit where an evacuee is likely to make first

contact with the ground outside the cabin. The exterior emergency lighting may be provided by either interior

or exterior sources with light intensity measurements made with the emergency exits open.

§ 29.812 Emergency lighting. For transport Category A rotorcraft, the following apply: (c) Each light

required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this section must be operable manually from the cockpit station and from a

point in the passenger compartment that is readily accessible. The cockpit control device must have an “on,”

“off,” and “armed” position so that when turned on at the cockpit or passenger compartment station or when

armed at the cockpit station, the emergency lights will either illuminate or remain illuminated upon interruption

of the rotorcraft's normal electric power.

§ 29.812 Emergency lighting. (d) Any means required to assist the occupants in descending to the ground

must be illuminated so that the erected assist means is visible from the rotorcraft.

§ 29.812 Emergency lighting. For transport Category A rotorcraft, the following apply: (d) (1) The assist

means must be provided with an illumination of not less than 0.03 foot-candle (measured normal to the

direction of the incident light) at the ground end of the erected assist means where an evacuee using the

established escape route would normally make first contact with the ground, with the rotorcraft in each of the

attitudes corresponding to the collapse of one or more legs of the landing gear.

§ 29.812 Emergency lighting. For transport Category A rotorcraft, the following apply: (d) (2) If the

emergency lighting subsystem illuminating the assist means is independent of the rotorcraft's main emergency

lighting system, it— (i) Must automatically be activated when the assist means is erected;

§ 29.812 Emergency lighting. For transport Category A rotorcraft, the following apply: (d) (2) If the

emergency lighting subsystem illuminating the assist means is independent of the rotorcraft's main emergency

lighting system, it— (ii) Must provide the illumination required by paragraph (d)(1); and

§ 29.812 Emergency lighting. For transport Category A rotorcraft, the following apply: (d) (2) If the

emergency lighting subsystem illuminating the assist means is independent of the rotorcraft's main emergency

lighting system, it— (iii) May not be adversely affected by stowage.

§ 29.812 Emergency lighting. For transport Category A rotorcraft, the following apply: (e) The energy

supply to each emergency lighting unit must provide the required level of illumination for at least 10 minutes at

the critical ambient conditions after an emergency landing.

§ 29.812 Emergency lighting. For transport Category A rotorcraft, the following apply: (f) If storage

batteries are used as the energy supply for the emergency lighting system, they may be recharged from the

rotorcraft's main electrical power system provided the charging circuit is designed to preclude inadvertent

battery discharge into charging circuit faults.

§ 29.853 Compartment interiors. For each compartment to be used by the crew or passengers— (b) In

addition to meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(2), seat cushions, except those on flight crewmember

seats, must meet the test requirements of Part II of appendix F of Part 25 of this chapter, or equivalent.

§ 29.855 Cargo and baggage compartments. (d) Each cargo and baggage compartment that is not sealed

so as to contain cargo compartment fires completely without endangering the safety of a rotorcraft or its

occupants must be designed, or must have a device, to ensure detection of fires or smoke by a crewmember

while at his station and to prevent the accumulation of harmful quantities of smoke, flame, extinguishing

agents, and other noxious gases in any crew or passenger compartment. This must be shown in flight.

§ 29.923 Rotor drive system and control mechanism tests. (a) Endurance tests, general. Each rotor drive

system and rotor control mechanism must be tested, as prescribed in paragraphs (b) through (n) and (p) of

this section, for at least 200 hours plus the time required to meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3),

and (k) of this section. These tests must be conducted as follows:

### Bell 429 Compliance Analysis Page 5 of 6

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Figure 1c: Non

‐ Compliant (continued)

§ 29.923 Rotor drive system and control mechanism tests. (a) Endurance tests, general. Each rotor drive

system and rotor control mechanism must be tested, as prescribed in paragraphs (b) through (n) and (p) of

this section, for at least 200 hours plus the time required to meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3),

and (k) of this section. These tests must be conducted as follows: (1) Ten-hour test cycles must be used,

except that the test cycle must be extended to include the OEI test of paragraphs (b)(2) and (k), of this section

if OEI ratings are requested.

§ 29.923 Rotor drive system and control mechanism tests. (a) Endurance tests, general. Each rotor drive

system and rotor control mechanism must be tested, as prescribed in paragraphs (b) through (n) and (p) of

this section, for at least 200 hours plus the time required to meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3),

and (k) of this section. These tests must be conducted as follows: (2) The tests must be conducted on the

rotorcraft.

§ 29.923 Rotor drive system and control mechanism tests. (a) Endurance tests, general. Each rotor drive

system and rotor control mechanism must be tested, as prescribed in paragraphs (b) through (n) and (p) of

this section, for at least 200 hours plus the time required to meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3),

and (k) of this section. These tests must be conducted as follows: (3) The test torque and rotational speed

must be— (i) Determined by the powerplant limitations

§ 29.923 Rotor drive system and control mechanism tests. (a) Endurance tests, general. Each rotor drive

system and rotor control mechanism must be tested, as prescribed in paragraphs (b) through (n) and (p) of

this section, for at least 200 hours plus the time required to meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3),

and (k) of this section. These tests must be conducted as follows: (3) The test torque and rotational speed

must be— (ii) Absorbed by the rotors to be approved for the rotorcraft.

Safety Equipment § 29.1411 General. (e) Long-range signaling device. The stowage provisions for the

long-range signaling device required by §29.1415 must be near an exit available during an unplanned ditching.

Appendix B to Part 29—Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter Instrument Flight VIII. Equipment, systems, and

installation. The basic equipment and installation must comply with Subpart F of Part 29 through Amendment

29–14, with the following exceptions and additions: (a) Flight and navigation instruments. (2) A sta ndby

attitude indicator which meets the requirements of §§29.1303(g)(1) through (7), instead of a rate-of-turn

indicator required by §29.1303(g). If standby batteries are provided, they may be charged from the aircraft

electrical system if adequate isolation is incorporated. The system must be designed so that the sta ndby

batteries may not be used for engine starting.

### Bell 429 Compliance Analysis Page 6 of 6

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Figure 2: Partially Compliant

§ 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure. (b) Fatigue tolerance evaluation (including tolerance to flaws).

The structure must be shown by analysis supported by test evidence and, if available, service experience to

be of fatigue tolerant design. The fatigue tolerance evaluation must include the requirements of either

paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, or a combination thereof, and also must include a determination of

the probable locations and modes of damage caused by fatigue, considering environmental effects,

intrinsic/discrete flaws, or accidental damage. Compliance with the flaw tolerance requirements of paragraph

(b)(1) or (2) of this section is required unless the applicant establishes that these fatigue flaw tolerant methods

for a particular structure cannot be achieved within the limitations of geometry, inspectability, or good design

practice. Under these circumstances, the safe-life evaluation of paragraph (b)(3) of this section is required.

§ 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure. (b) Fatigue tolerance evaluation (including tolerance to flaws).

(1) Flaw tolerant safe-life evaluation. It must be shown that the structure, with flaws present, is able to

withstand repeated loads of variable magnitude without detectable flaw growth for the following time

intervals— (i) Life of the rotorcraft.

§ 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure. (b) Fatigue tolerance evaluation (including tolerance to flaws).

(2) Fail-safe (residual strength after flaw growth) evaluation.

§ 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure. (b) Fatigue tolerance evaluation (including tolerance to flaws).

(2) Fail-safe (residual strength after flaw growth) evaluation. (i) The residual strength evaluation must show

that the remaining structure after flaw growth is able to withstand design limit loads without failure within its

operational life.

§ 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure. (b) Fatigue tolerance evaluation (including tolerance to flaws).

(2) Fail-safe (residual strength after flaw growth) evaluation. (ii) Inspection intervals and methods must be

established as necessary to ensure that failures are detected prior to residual strength conditions being

reached.

§ 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure. (b) Fatigue tolerance evaluation (including tolerance to flaws).

(2) Fail-safe (residual strength after flaw growth) evaluation. (iii) If significant changes in structural stiffness or

geometry, or both, follow from a structural failure or partial failure, the effect on flaw tolerance must be further

investigated.

§ 29.853 Compartment interiors. For each compartment to be used by the crew or passengers— (a) The

materials (including finishes or decorative surfaces applied to the materials) must meet the following test

criteria as applicable: (2) Floor covering, textiles (including draperies and upholstery), seat cushions, padding,

decorative and non-decorative coated fabrics, leather, trays and galley furnishings, electrical conduit, thermal

and acoustical insulation and insulation covering, air ducting, joint and edge covering, cargo compartment

liners, insulation blankets, cargo covers, and transparencies, molded and thermoformed parts, air ducting

joints, and trim strips (decorative and chafing) that are constructed of materials not covered in paragraph (a)(3)

of this section, must be self-extinguishing when tested vertically in accordance with the applicable portion of

appendix F of Part 25 of this chapter, or other approved equivalent methods. The average burn length may not

exceed 8 inches and the average flame time after removal of the flame source may not exceed 15 seconds.

Drippings from the test specimen may not continue to flame for more than an average of 5 seconds after

falling.

§ 29.1331 Instruments using a power supply. For category A rotorcraft—(a) Each required flight instrument

using a power supply must have— (3) A visual means integral with each instrument to indicate when the

power adequate to sustain proper instrument performance is not being supplied. The power must be

measured at or near the point where it enters the instrument. For electrical instruments, the power is

considered to be adequate when the voltage is within the approved limits

# Exhibit “3”

# Exhibit “4”

## LARRY GRANDY

AVIATION ACCIDENT CONSULTANTS

3473 RAVINE DRIVE

CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92010

760-729-6298, 760-701 -2083 (c)

QUALIFICATION SUMMARY

Forty four years of progressive experienc e as an operational rotary and fixed wing

pilot. Military and civilian designations as Mission commander, Formation Leader,

Chief Pilot, Chief Flight Instructor, Standardization Pilot, Safety Officer, Functional

Check Pilot, Aircraft Commander, Maintenance Officer and FAA Check

Airman/Aviation Safety Counselor.

EDUCATION

Bachelor of Arts , Miami University, 1968

Master of Science , University of Southern California, 1980

Graduate, University of Southern California Aviation Safety and Security Program,

2010

Graduate, Helicopter Association International Human Factors Safety Course, 2002

Graduate, Commanding Officer’s Safety Course, 1985

Graduate, U. S. Navy Fixed Wing Transition Course, 1974

Graduate, U. S. Army Rotary Wing Course, 1968

ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP

Helicopter Association International, International Society of Air Safety Investigators,

National Association of Flight Instructors, American Helicopter Society, National

Emergency Medical Services Pilots’ Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

FLIGHT CERTIFICATION

Airline Transport Pilot-Helicopter

Flight Instructor-Instrument, Helicopter

Former FAA Check Airman

AIRCRAFT FLIGHT EXPERIENCE

Bell Helicopter: BH-205(Huey), BH-212(Huey), BH-222, BH-230, BH-206, BH209(Cobra)

Eurocopter: EC-135, MBB-BK117, MBB-BO105, AS-350(A-Star)

MD Helicopters: MD-900/902(Explorer), MD-500

Boeing Helicopters: BV-107(CH-46)

Schweizer Aircraft: SH-300C

North American : T-2 Buckeye, OV-10 Bronco

McDonnell Douglas: A-4 SkyhawkFLIGHT HOURS Over 8,500 accident free flight hours in various types of helicopters,

airplanes, and missions. Military and civilian operating experience in Flight Instruction,

Emergency Medical Services, Night Vision Goggles and Instrument Flight.

EXPERIENCE

1989-Present . Aviation- Aeromedical pilot, Flight Instructor and Part 135 Check

Airman for MD-902, BHT-222 & BK-117. Current ly employed by Mercy Air Services,

Inc. Former Chief pilot for Mercy Air Services, Inc. Aeromedical pilot for Omniflight

Helicopters, Inc. Chief Flight Instructor for Civic Helicopters Inc. FAA Aviation Safety

Counselor, San Diego FSDO. Detailed involvement in safety and accident prevention

during all of the above employments.

1968-1988 . Military- Career officer United States Marine Corps, holding numerous

aviation leadership billets, including Command tours as Commanding Officer of Light

Attack Helicopter Squadron and Executive Officer of Marine Aircraft Group. Additional

positions include Maintenance Officer, Safety Officer, and Standardization pilot.

Combat experience, Vietnam.

# Exhibit “5”Visit Eurocopter at the ILA Berlin Air Show both in the HeliCenter (Hall 3, Booth 3636) and in the

EADS Pavilion. For current news and pictures from the air show, go to:

About Med-Trans

Med-Trans Corporation, headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is a leading provider of air ambulance programs

throughout the United States. A proven solution to our partners, Med-Trans offers an array of customized air

medical program designs including hybrid models, community based models or traditional hospital-based

models. The company’s extensive fleet rapidly delivers teams of highly trained professionals to patients,

striving to provide the patient with the best possib le outcome. For more info rmation, please visit: www.medtrans.net 

## Med-Trans Corporation Orders 16 EC135s to Support Expanding

Business Model

Today, at an event during the ILA Berlin Airshow 20 12, American Eurocopter announced that Med-Trans

Corporation, an industry leading air medical provider, has signed an agreement to purchase up to 16 EC135®

helicopters. The order includes 10 firm bookings and options for an additional six helicopters. The new EC135s

will help Med-Trans sustain its market growth and expansion.

Berlin

, 13 September 2012

“This selection of the EC135 as the base of its expa nsion exemplifies Med-Trans’ trust and commitment to

our aircraft and our company,” said Marc Paganini, Pr esident and CEO of American Eurocopter. “Med-Trans

has been a valued customer for many years and we are delighted to continue our long-standing relationship

with it and look forward to supporting its continued growth.”

The EC135 has established itself as one of the premier helicopters in the U.S. air medical market. One of the

highlights of this was Med-Trans’ selection of the EC 135 as the platform for many of its life-saving air

medical programs in 2007 with the purchase of eight EC135s and eight options. Med-Trans currently has 20

EC135s in its fleet “We orig inally selected the EC135 because we wanted a fleet that was not only versatile

and reliable, but one that also provided a flexible and adaptable platform that would meet current mission

demands and grow with us to meet the needs of our expanding customer base,” explained Fred B. Buttrell,

President and CEO of Med-Trans Cor poration. “With the addition of t hese new EC135s we will be able to

continue to provide economical aircraft solutions th at maximize patient care and partner satisfaction

throughout our wider service regions.”

The EC135 was designed to meet the demands of operator s in variety of mission environments. The aircraft

provides high performance, extended range, flexibility, and reliability.

"We know that HEMS operators especi ally appreciate the ou tstanding maneuverability and cabin size of the

EC135. We are happy that this aircraft has become th e twin-engine helicopter of choice in the air medical

services industry in the United Stat es and other countries", said Wolfg ang Schoder, Eurocopter’s Executive

Vice President, Programs. Worldwide, there are more than 1000 EC135s in servic e, and around 50% are in

service for emergency medical services. In the U.S., ther e are over 260 EC135s in service, and over the last

ten years, the EC135 has accounted for over 80% of th e light twin helicopters delivered to the U.S. air

medical industry.

press.eurocopter.com 

### Pa g e 1 of 2 EADS Global Website - Me d -Trans Corporation Orders 16 EC135s to Support Expandin

...

10/2/2012 htt p ://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/news/ p ress.20120913

_ ec

_ me d -trans.htmlAbout American Eurocopter

American Eurocopter is the U.S. aff iliate of Eurocopter , the largest helicopter manuf acturer in the world, and

a subsidiary of EADS North America Holdings, the North American operations of EADS, the second largest

aerospace and defense company in the world. Americ an Eurocopter is a helicopter manufacturer and

markets, sells and supports the broadest range of civil and parapub lic helicopters offered by any

manufacturer. The product line represents the most costeffective, technologically-advanced helicopters,

ranging from light single to heavy twin, serving all markets and missions. Company headquarters and main

facility are in Grand Prairie, TX, with a large manufacturing and pr oduction facility in Columbus, MS.

About Eurocopter

Established in 1992, the Franco-German-Spanish Eurocopt er Group is a division of EADS, a world leader in

aerospace and defense-related servic es. The Eurocopter Group employs approximately 20,000 people. In

2011, Eurocopter confirmed its position as the world’s number one helicopter manufacturer with a turnover of

5.4 billion Euros, orders for 457 new helicopters and a 43 percent market share in the civil and parapublic

sectors. Overall, the Group’s helicopters account for 33 percent of the worldwide civil and parapublic fleet.

Eurocopter’s strong international presen ce is ensured by its subsidiaries and participations in 21 countries.

Eurocopter’s worldwide network of se rvice centers, training facilities, distributor s and certified agents

supports some 2,900 customers. Ther e are currently more than 11,300 Euro copter helicopters in service in

149 countries. Eurocopter o ffers the most comprehensiv e civil and military helicopter range in the world and

is fully committed to safety as the most important aspect of its business.

For more information, please contact:

Stéphane CHERY

Head of International Media Relations

Eurocopter Tel.: +33 4 42 85 60 51

Fax: +33 4 42 85 89 70

Pascale Fleury

Media Relations France, Eastern

Europe, Middle East & Africa

Eurocopter Tel.: +33 4 42 85 62 38

Fax: +33 4 42 85 89 70

Cell: +33 6 32 54 05 02

Gloria Illas

Media Relations Latin America &

Southern Europe

Eurocopter Tel.: +33 4 42 85 58 89

Fax: +33 4 42 85 89 70

Julie Guerin

Media Relations Northern Europe &

North America

Eurocopter Tel.: +33 4 42 85 59 64

Fax: +33 4 42 85 89 70

Priscilla Yip

Media Relations Asia Pacific

Eurocopter Tel.: + 65 6 59 27 217

Fax: + 65 6 65 90 872 

### Pa g e 2 of 2 EADS Global Website - Me d -Trans Corporation Orders 16 EC135s to Support Expandin

...

10/2/2012 htt p ://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/news/ p ress.20120913

_ ec

_ me d -trans.html

# Exhibit “6”

### THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE FAA APPROVING AN ADDITIONAL 500

POUNDS OF GROSS WEIGHT FO R THE BELL 429 HELICOPTER

PREPARED BY

LOREN C. SCOTT & ASSOCIATES

743 Woodview Court

Baton Rouge, LA 70810

(225) 751-1707

www.lorencscottassociates.com

September 2012

### ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Bell Helicopter recently applied for an exemption from the FAA that would allow

the company's 429 helicopter to operate with 500 pounds more of gross weight, a waiver

that would greatly improve the range and perf ormance of this helicopter and result in

additional sales of the 429 aircraft. It is Bell Helicopter's argument if the exemption is

granted its additional sales of more than 425 additional units of the 429 over a 19-year

period would be net new helicopters produced in the U.S., thereby creating new business

sales, household earnings, and jobs in this country. The purpose of this report is to

estimate the impact of these additional sales on the U.S. economy. Our findings can be

summarized as follows:

 Based on a sales price of $5.8 million a unit that increases 3% per year and has

a 49% U.S. content, we estimate U.S re venues for Bell from the sales of these

additional units will range from a low of $73.9 million in 2013 to a high of

$121 million in 2031

.

 Using the RIMII Input/Output Table, we estimate the following impacts of

these new sales on the U.S. economy:

 New sales at businesses in the U.S. will range from a low of $206.1

million in 2013 to a high of $337.4 million in 2031. On the average over

the 19-year period, business sales should increase by $243.1 million a

year. Over the entire 19-year period business sales in the U.S. will

increase by over $4.6 billion.

 Household earnings for workers in the U.S w ill rise over a range of $52.2

million in 2013 to a high of $85.6 mill ion in 2031. On the average over the

19-year period, household earnings should increase by $61.7 million a

year. Over the entire 19-year peri od, household earnings in the U.S. will

jump by almost $1.2 billion.

 In 2013, the additional sales of the 42 9 helicopter will crea te a total of 926

jobs in the U.S., a figure that will incr ease to a high of 1,527 jobs in 2031.

Over the entire 19-year time period, the job bump will average 1,100 a

year. The average annual wage of these jobs is $56,371, which is 7.1%

higher than the average annual wage in the U.S. private sector. The job

multiplier for this project is estimated at 3.1.

 Considering only the year 2013, we found that the industry sector that

benefits the most from the new helicopter sales in the manufacturing

sector – the sector where Bell Helicopter is located. However, there are

five other sectors in the economy wher e job gains alone exceed 50 in that

year.

### iii A cursory review of these findings sugge sts the economic benefits from granting

an exemption of 500 pounds of gross weight for Bell's 429 Helicop ter are significant

enough for the FAA to reconsider its earlier denial.

### iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Introduction .................................................................................................................. ....................1

II. Measuring the Direct Benefits ................................................................................................ ........2

III. Measuring the Multiplier Effect .......................................................................................................3

The Multiplier Effect .................................................................................................................4

The Input-Output Table .............................................................................................................4

Total Impacts on the U.S.: Business Sales................................................................... ............5

Total Impacts on the U.S.: Household Earnings........................................................................6

Total Impacts on the U.S.: Jobs................................................................................................ .8

Estimated Impacts Across Industries.........................................................................................9

IV. Summary & Conclusions ......................................................................................................... ......11

### I. Introduction

Bell Helicopter recently applied to the F AA for an exemption that would permit

the Bell 429 helicopter to operate with an additional 500 pounds of gross weight. The

company asserts that this would greatly im prove the range and performance of the 429

and result in an increas e in sales of the 429.

In the marketplace for this type of helic opter, Bell's 429 is in direct competition

with the Eurocopter Deutschland EC 135, the Agusta AW109, and the Eurocopter

Deutschland EC 145. It is Bell's position that if this waiver is granted (1) sales of Bell's

429 helicopter would increase by more than 425 addi tional units over 2013-31, and (2)

absent the waiver these additional sales w ould be made by the European firms and the

helicopters would be produced in Europe rather than by Bell in its U.S. and Canadian

facilities. Bell's assertion that these helicop ters would be produced in Europe absent the

waiver is based on the fact that Bell has 10,000 employees in the U.S. and 2,000 in

Canada, whereas Eurocopter employs only 876 in the U.S., 200 in Canada, and 12,500 in

France and Germany.

It is the purpose of this report to estimate the impact on the U.S. economy of Bell

obtaining the waiver from the FA A and being able to sell mo re than 425 additional 429s

over 2013-31. It is not within the scope of this report to (1 ) analyze whether there is a

demand for 425 or more Bell 429 helicopters or (2) whether or no t Eurocopter would

produce these helicopters solely in Europe if th e waiver is not granted. We definitely do

not dispute these two positions. We were just not tasked with testing them.

### 2

II. Measuring the Direct Effects

Analysts with Bell Helicopters have estimated the company's sales of the 429

helicopter with and without the exemp tion by year from 2013 through 2031. The

additional sales by year with the waiver are shown in Figure 1.

16 20 24 28 32 36

2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 26.0 32.0

25.0 25.0

24.0 26.0 26.0

24.0

22.0

20.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 23.0

19.0

18.0 25.0 25.0 

### Fig. 1: Increase in Bell 429 Sales With waiverNumber of 429s

Source: Bell Helicopters



### Note that the boost in sales from the exemption range from a high of 32 in 2014

to a low of 18 in 2029. Summing up the additio nal sales by year results in more than 425

additional 429s sold over this 19-year period.

Each 429 will sell for approximately $5.8 million in 2013, assuming the current

sales price of the model rises by 3%. The Be ll 429 has a 49% U.S. content, so for each

year, we used only 49% of total sales as the U. S. direct sales impact . Figure 2 illustrates

the expected increase in Bell revenues in the U.S. from the additional sales of the 429s if

the waiver is granted. These numbers are obviously non-trivial. Lowest revenues occur

### 3

in 2013 at $73.9 million and the highest are in 2031 at $121 million. Generally speaking,

the bars in Figures 1 and 2 follow the same pa ttern over time. However, there will be a

slight difference in the pattern of the bars in Figure 2 versus Figure 1 because in the

former a 3% increase in sales price is built in each year.

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 73.9 93.7

75.4 77.6 76.8 85.7 88.2

83.9

79.2

74.2 76.4 82.6 89.1 96.0 98.9

84.1

82.1 117.4 121.0 

### Fig. 2: Increase in Bell 429 U.S. Revenues With WaiverMillions of Dollars

Source: Bell Helicopters & LCS Inc.



### III. Measuring the Multiplier Effect

It is important to note that the direct im pacts of the waiver as shown in Figure 2

do not capture the full impact on the U.S. economy of granting the weight waiver. It is a

well established principle th at business decisions have both direct and indirect

(multiplier) impacts on the economy. Figure 2 only captures the direct effect of the

waiver.

### 4

The Multiplier Effect

However, these direct impacts alone would significantly understate the role of the

Bell's additional revenues on th e economy. The reason is that Bell also buys from, and

sells to, many other firms in the economy. Too, when Bell employees are paid more

earnings as a result of the additional sales th ey will spend that money at grocery stores,

car dealerships, movie theaters, etc., which creates new earnings in those establishments,

which are then spent, etc., etc.

Thus, any change in the sales at Bell indirectly affects these other companies and

their employees, which in turn affects firm s that buy from and sell to these firms and

employees, etc. For example, when a decision is made by a firm that creates a new job, a

chain-reaction is started which works it s way throughout the economy. This chainreaction (multiplier effect) causes even more jobs to be created. The analogy is of a rock

being tossed into a pond. Not only is there an initial splash, but ripples are created that

spread throughout the pond.

The Input-Output Table

The major difficulty lies in attempting to quantify these indirect impacts.

Fortunately, a technique has been deve loped for precisely this purpose – an input-output

(I/O) table . An I/O table is a matrix of numbers that describes the interactions between

all industries in a geographica l area. The I/O table provides a complete picture of the

flows of products and services in an economy for a given year, illustrating the

relationship between producers and consumers and the interdep endencies of industries in

a region.

### 5

An I/O table for the 48 contiguous states been constructed by the Bureau of

Economic Analysis (BEA) in the U.S. De partment of Commerce. The BEA is the

government agency responsible for measur ing the nation’s gross domestic product each

quarter. This model is referred to as the RIMS II model, and is similar to IMPLAN or the

REMI models. Essentially, data from Figur e 2 on Bell's additional revenues are plugged

into the RIMS II model to estimate separately three impacts on the country caused by

these additional helicopter sales: (1) new sales for firms in the U.S.; (2) new household

earnings for residents of the U.S.; and finally; (3) new jobs in the U.S.

Total Impacts on the U.S.: Business Sales

Table 1 documents our I/O table estimates of the impact of Bell's additional

revenues on business sales in the U.S. economy by year from 2013-31. Though in tabular

form rather than a bar chart, it is clear th at these business sales effects track the pattern

shown back in Figure 2.

Businesses stand to gain subs tantially if the weight waiver is granted to Bell for

its 429 helicopter. The smallest boost to bus iness sales would be in the initial year –

2013 – when we estimate sales will rise by $206.1 million, which is still a substantial

number despite the fact that it is the lowest in Table 1. The largest sales benefits occur in

year 2031, when sales would be up by a bout one-third of a billion dollars ($337.4

million). On the average over the 19-year period, business sales should increase by

$243.1 million a year. Over the entire period of 2013-3 1, business sales in the U.S.

are forecast to jump a total of over $4.6 billion , clearly a worthy number for the FAA

to consider in re-evaluating whet her to grant the weight waiver.

### 6

Table 1

Estimated Impact on Business Sales in the U.S. If Weight Waiver Granted

(Millions of Dollars)

Year Business Sales

2013 $206.1

2014 261.3

2015 210.3

2016 216.6

2017 214.1

2018 239.0

2019 246.1

2020 234.0

2021 220.9

2022 206.9

2023 213.1

2024 230.5

2025 248.7

2026 267.8

2027 275.8

2028 234.7

2029 229.0

2030 327.6

2031 337.4

Total $4,619.7



### Total Impacts on the U.S.: Household Earnings

While the numbers in Table 1 are impressive, the metric that is of greater concern

to the general citizenry is the impact on hou sehold earnings. The new sales in Table 1

can only be achieved by hiring more people a nd paying them. Table 2 presents the data

on the I/O table estimates of the impact of Bell's additional 429 sales on household

earnings in the U.S.

Note that even in the we akest performance year – 2013 – households in the U.S.

still should see their pocketbooks improve by $52.2 million. The best year for

### 7

households would be 2031 when earnings are projected to rise by $85.6 million. On the

average over the 19-year period, household earnings should increase by $61.7 million a

year. Over the entire 19-year period shown in Table 2, households in the U.S. are

expected to see their earnings jump by almost $1.2 billion.

Table 2

Estimated Impact on Household Earnings in the U.S. If Weight Waiver Granted

(Millions of Dollars)

Year Household Earnings

2013 $52.2

2014 66.3

2015 53.4

2016 54.9

2017 54.3

2018 60.6

2019 62.4

2020 59.4

2021 56.1

2022 52.5

2023 54.1

2024 58.5

2025 63.1

2026 67.9

2027 70.0

2028 59.5

2029 58.1

2030 83.1

2031 85.6

Total $1,172.0

### 8

Total Impacts on the U.S.: Jobs

Of course, there is a second metric of keen interest to U.S. citizens. How many

new jobs would be added in the U.S. economy if the weight waiver is granted? I/O table

estimates of the job impacts are shown in Tabl e 3. Even in the smallest impact year of

2013, the job creation is impressive at 926. The most jobs is expected to be created in

2031, peaking at 1,527. Note that in 13 of the 19 years list ed more than 1,000 jobs are

expected to be created by the weight waiver. Indeed, the average annual number of

jobs created over the 19-year period is an impressive 1,100 jobs

.

Table 3

Estimated Impact on Jobs in th e U.S. If Weight Waiver Granted

Year Permanent Jobs

2013 926

2014 1,183

2015 952

2016 980

2017 969

2018 1,081

2019 1,114

2020 1,059

2021 1,000

2022 936

2023 964

2024 1,043

2025 1,126

2026 1,212

2027 1,249

2028 1,062

2029 1,036

2030 1,483

2031 1,527

Annual Average 1,100

### 9

It is possible to use the data in Tables 2 and 3 to derive at least one indicator of

the quality of the jobs created by th e weight waiver. By di viding the number of jobs

created in a given year by the amount of hous ehold earnings generated in that same year,

we can derive an estimate of the average annual wage paid in the jobs created by the

weight waiver. For example, in 2013 the I/ O table estimates that the 926 people (Table

3) working, due to the granting of the waiv er, would earn a total of $52.2 million (Table

2). That implies an annual average wage of $56,371 . By way of reference, the average

annual wage of all workers in the U. S. private sector in June 2012 was $52,640. 1 

### Thus,

the average annual wage in th e jobs created by the weight waiver would be about 7.1%

higher than the average wage in the U.S. private sector. That is at least one indicator that

the jobs created by the waiver ar e relatively high-paying jobs.

There is another common job metric that is implied by the data generated in Table

3 – the job multiplier . Bell executives have estimated th at if the gross weight exemption

is granted Bell would hire 300 more workers at its U.S. plants in order to meet the

increased demand for 429 helicopters. If (f rom Table 3) the granting of the exemption

will create a total of 926 j obs in the U.S. in 2013, that implies a job multiplier of 3.1 (926

divided by 300). This is a relatively larg e job multiplier, which is common when being

calculated for a manufacturing company as oppos ed to say a healthcare or retail trade

company.

Estimated Impacts Across Industries

Readers may be interested in how the be nefits we documented in Tables 1-3 are

spread across various industries in the U.S. The I/O table allows for this segmentation.

1 www.bls.gov.

### 10

Industry breakdowns are shown for year 2013 in Table 4. Note that the numbers in the

bottom line of Table 4 correspond to the 2013 nu mbers in Tables 1-3. Readers can scan

Table 4 and peruse I/O estimates of the imp act of the waiver in 2013 on business sales,

household earnings, and jobs across various industry categories.

For example, we showed earlier in Tables 1-3 that in 2013 the waiver is estimated

to create $206.1 million in business sales (T able 1), $52.2 million in household earnings

(Table 2), and 926 jobs (Table 3). Accord ing to the data in Table 4, the largest

beneficiaries of these benefits go to the manufacturing sector , which should see a bump

in its sales of $118.5 million. Workers in manufacturing should see household earnings

rise by $24.2 million, while jobs in that sect or increase by 306. It should be no surprise

that this sector is the greatest beneficiary of the waiver since this is the sector that houses

the helicopter manufacturing facilities – th e "rock that hits the economic pond" so to

speak.

Note that the manufacturing sector is not the only one to benefit handily from

granting of the weight waiver. Scanning down the jobs column, the reader will discover

that there are five other sectors where empl oyment is projected to rise by 50 or more.

These include: (1) retail trade (+73 jobs), (2) he althcare and social assistance (+70 jobs),

(3) administrative and management waste services (+65 jobs), (4)

professional/scientific/technical services (+57 jobs) and (5) real estate/rental/leasing (+51

jobs). It is important for the reader to not e that the figures in Table 4 are for 2013 – the

year of the smallest estimated benefit if one s cans the data back in Tables 1-3. If we had

calculated the numbers in Table 4 for 2031 – the y ear of the largest gains – all of the jobs

numbers would have been about 65% higher.

### 11

Table 4

Estimated Distribution of New Business Sales, Household Earnings and Jobs

In 2013 Due to Waiver

(Sales & Earnings in Millions of Dollars)

Industry Sales Earnings Jobs

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, And Hunting $1.2 $0.2 6

Mining $1.1 $0.2 3

Utilities* $2.6 $0.5 5

Construction $0.8 $0.3 7

Manufacturing $118.5 $24.2 306

Wholesale Trade $6.7 $2.2 32

Retail Trade $5.6 $2.0 73

Transportation And Warehousing* $4.8 $1.7 36

Information $6.2 $1.5 23

Finance And Insurance $9.6 $2.9 47

Real Estate And Rental And Leasing $12.3 $1.0 51

Professional, Scientific, And Technical Services $8.0 $3.8 57

Management Of Companies And Enterprises $9.3 $3.9 39

Administrative And Waste Management Services $3.6 $1.6 65

Educational Services $0.8 $0.3 11

Health Care And Social A ssistance $6.7 $3.2 70

Arts, Entertainment, And Recreation $1.1 $0.4 16

Accommodation $0.9 $0.3 9

Food Services And Drinki ng Places $2.5 $0.8 43

Other Services $3.5 $1.1 27

Total $206.1 $52.2 926



### IV. Summary & Conclusions

Bell Helicopter recently applied for an exemption from the FAA that would

allow the company's 429 helic opter to operate with 500 pounds more of gross weight, a

waiver that would greatly impr ove the range and performance of this helicopter and result

in additional sales of the 429 aircraft. It is Bell Helicopter's argument if the exemption is

### 12

granted its additional sales of more than 425 additional units of the 429 over a 19-year

period would be net new helicopters produced in the U.S., thereby creating new business

sales, household earnings, and jobs in this country. The purpose of this report is to

estimate the impact of these additional sales on the U.S. economy. Our findings can be

summarized as follows:

 Based on a sales price of $5.8 million a unit that increases 3% per year and has

a 49% U.S. content, we estimate U.S re venues for Bell from the sales of these

additional units will range from a low of $73.9 million in 2013 to a high of

$121 million in 2031

.

 Using the RIMII Input/Output Table, we estimate the following impacts of

these new sales on the U.S. economy:

 New sales at businesses in the U.S. will range from a low of $206.1

million in 2013 to a high of $337.4 million in 2031. On the average over

the 19-year period, business sales should increase by $243.1 million a

year. Over the entire 19- year pe riod business sales in the U.S. will

increase by over $4.6 billion.

 Household earnings for workers in the U.S w ill rise over a range of $52.2

million in 2013 to a high of $85.6 million in 2031. On the average over

the 19-year period, household earnings should increase by $61.7 million a

year. Over the entire 19-year peri od, household earnings in the U.S. will

jump by almost $1.2 billion.

 In 2013, the additional sales of the 42 9 helicopter will crea te a total of 926

jobs in the U.S., a figure that will incr ease to a high of 1,527 jobs in 2031.

### 13

Over the entire 19-year time period, the job bump will average 1,100 a

year.

 Considering only the year 2013, we found that the industry sector that

benefits the most from the new helicopter sales in the manufacturing

sector – the sector where Bell Helicopter is located. However, there are

five other sectors in the economy wher e job gains alone exceed 50 in that

year.

A cursory review of these findings sugge sts the economic benefits from granting

an exemption of 500 pounds of gross weight for Bell's 429 Helicop ter are significant

enough for the FAA to reconsider its earlier denial.

### Page 1 

## LOREN C. SCOTT

C URRICULUM 

## V ITAE



## Personal Information

Home: 743 Woodview Court Phone: (225) 751-1707

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810 Fax: (225) 751-2350

Cell: 225-937-4283

Title : President, Email Address: lorencscott@aol.com

Loren C. Scott & Associates, Inc.

743 Woodview Court

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810 Birth date: January 25, 1942



## Education

Permian High School, Odessa, TX

-- Graduated May, 1960

Odessa Junior College, Odessa, TX

-- 1960-1962: Associate in Applied Science

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX

-- 1962 -1966: B.S., Economics

-- 1965; M.A.,

Econ.

-- 1966

Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK -1966 -1969: Ph.D.-Economics

-- 1969



## Professional Teaching and Administrative Experience

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, Baton Rouge, LA August, 1969 - Present

Professor Emeritus



## , January, 1999 - present

Endowed Chair and Director of Division:

Freeport-McMoRan Chair of Economics and Director of Division of Economic

Development and Forecasting: June, 1996 - 1998.

Endowed Chair/Professorship and Chairman of Economics Department:

Freeport-McMoRan Chair of Economics and Chairman of Economics Dept.: January,

1996 - June, 1996

### Page 2

Thomas J. Singletary Business Partnership Professor & Chairman of Dept.: September,

1990 - Jan., 1996

Professor of Economics and Chairman of Economics Department: September, 1984 -

August, 1990

Professor of Economics and Acting Chairman of Economics Department: August, 1983

- August, 1984

Professor of Economics and Associate Director of Division of Research:

Professor of Economics and Associate Director of Division of Research: July, 1977 -

August, 1983

Associate Professor and Associate Director of Division of Research: January,

1975 - June, 1977

Associate Professor and Acting Director of Division of Research: September, 1974 -

December, 1974

Other:

Associate Professor: September, 1972-September, 1974

Assistant Professor: Fall, 1969-September, 1972

Graduate Teaching Assistant: Oklahoma State University; Teaching Principles of

Economics for four semesters.

Teaching responsibilities have included graduate courses in Labor Economics,

Manageria l Economics and Microeconomics. Also have taught Principles, a senior level

course in Labor Theory, and a freshman course on The Economics of Social Issues.



## Other Appointments

Economics Editor, WBRZ- TV -Channel 2, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1985-1990

Author, quarterly article for Louisiana Business, a publication of Bank One of Louisiana,

1986 -98.

Governor Roemer's Task Force on Minority Set-Asides - 1989-90.

Baton Rouge Visions

-- Think Tank of Baton Rouge Area Foundation.

Governor Foster's Economic Development Transition Team - 1996.

### Page 3

Economic Consultant: Judicial Compensation Commission - 1995-present.

Governor Foster’s Economic Modeling & Diversification Task Force - Fall, 1997

Governor Foster’s Interagency Work Group on Labor Market Information - Fall, 1997

National Business Economic Issues Council: 2004-present

Economic Advisory Committee, Council on Competitiveness, 2011 to present



## Publications

Journal Articles and Proceedings:

"The Economic Effectiveness of On-the-Job Training: The Experience of the BIA in

Oklahoma," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 23 (January, 1970), pp. 220-236.

"The Market, Productivity, and Training Effects of Retraining the Unemployed," The

American Economist, (Fall, 1970), pp. 43-46.

"The Economic Effectiveness of On-the-Job Training: The Experience of the BIA in

Oklahoma: Reply," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, (January, 1971), pp. 268-269.

"Some Evidence on the Economic Effectiveness of Institutional vs. On-the-Job Training,"

Social Science Quarterly, (March, 1971), pp. 910-924, with Paul Blume.

"Minimum Wages and Black Employment in the Louisiana Sugar Cane Industry,"

Proceedings of the Industrial Relations Research Association, (1971), pp. 89-99, with

Lamar Jones.

"The U.S.D.A. and Wages in the Sugar Crop Industry," The Labor Law Journal (January,

1974), pp. 18-30, with Lamar Jones.

"On Moving the Poor: Subsidizing Relocation," Industrial Relations (February, 1975), pp.

63 -77, with Black, Smith, and Sirmon.

"The Modification of Industry Performance Through the Use of Government Monopsony

Power," Industrial Organizations Review (Number 1, 1975), pp. 28-36, with Sidney

Carroll.

"Job Search in Rural Labor Markets," Proceedings of the Industrial Relations Research

Association (December 1975), pp. 120-128, with B. Rungeling and L. Smith. Reprinted

in Monthly Labor Review (April, 1976), pp. 27-30 and in B. Rungeling, L. Smith, V.

### Page 4

Briggs, and J. Adams, Employment, Income, and Welfare in the Rural South (New York:

Praeger Publishers, 1977), pp. 58-76.

"On Moving the Poor: Subsidizing Relocation: Reply, “Industrial Relations (February,

1977), pp. 111-113, with Black, Smith and Sirmon.

"Labor Force Participation in Southern Rural Labor Markets, “American Journal of

Agricultural Economics (May 1977), pp. 266-274, with L. Smith and B. Rungeling.

Reprinted in B. Rungeling, L. Smith, V. Briggs, and J. Adams, Employment, Income, and

Welfare in the Rural South (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1977), pp. 51-57.

"Training and Relocation in Areas of Labor Surplus," Social Science Quarterly

(September 1977), pp. 312-320, with Black and Smith.

"The Effect of the Inventory Tax on the Location Decision of Wholesalers," Akron

Business Review (Winter 1977), pp. 31-35.

"Projecting State Revenues in Louisiana with an Econometric Model," State and Local

Government Review, (September 1978), pp. 92-99, with James Richardson.

"Tax Rate Changes and the Specification of the Tax Equation," Public Finance Quarterly,

(April 1979), pp. 238-247, with James Richardson.

"Comment on Rural Labor Market Papers," Proceedings of the Industrial Relations

Research Association (December 1977), pp. 243-245.

"An Assessment of Subsidized Relocation of Worker Policy in Britain: Comment," Journal

of Industrial Relations (March 1978), pp. 96-100, with Black, Smith, and Sirmon.

"Income and Employment in a State Econometric Model: The Case of Louisiana," Journal

of Economics Vol. 4 (1978), pp. 151-155, with James Richardson.

"A Methodology for Improving 'Wastage Rates' in Relocation Programs," Scottish Journal

of Political Economy (November 1978), pp. 301-309, with Black, Smith, and Sirmon.

"A Short Run Regional Oil and Gas Model: The Case of Louisiana," Growth and Change

(July 1979), pp. 19-24, with James Richardson.

"The Impact of the Energy Shortages on Small Businesses in Region VI," Texas Business

Review (July/August 1980), pp. 214-219, with James Richardson.

"Louisiana's Energy Future," in 28th Annual Institute on Mineral Law, Pat Martin (editor),

LSU Press, (March 1982), pp. 340-351.

### Page 5

"Resource Location Patterns and State Severance Taxes: Some Empirical Evidence,"

Natural Resources Journal, (April 1983), pp. 351-364, with James Richardson.

"Domestic and International Implications of Federal and State Policies Towards Heavy

Oil," in Heavy Versus Light Oil: Technical Issues and Economic Considerations, R. El

Mallakh (ed.), (Boulder: International Research Center for Energy and Economic

Development), 1983, pp. 121-134, with James Richardson.

"A Review of State Severance Taxes in the United States," Texas Business Review

(July/August, 1982), pp. 179-182, with James Richardson.

"Government Regulation and Market Distortions: The Case of the NGPA and the

Louisiana Economy," Journal of Energy and Development (Autumn, 1982), pp. 59-72.

"The Prospects for Growth in the Louisiana Economy," Energy in the Southwestern

States, Proceedings of the 1985 Conference on Energy in the Southwest Economy Federal

Reserve Bank of Dallas Conference, 1985, pp. 203-222.

"Welfare Expenditures and the Decline of Unions," Review of Economics and Statistics

, (August 1989), pp. 538-542, with William Moore and Robert Newman.

"Total Effects of the Decline on the Louisiana Economy," Proceedings: Ninth Annual Gulf

of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting , M inerals Management Service, U.S.

Department of Interior, October 1988, pp. 336-338.

"Forecasting the Louisiana Economy," Delta Business Review (Fall/Winter 1989), pp. 3-8.

"A Targeting Strategy for Use of Incentives in Economic Development," Economic

Development Review (Fall 1993), pp. 74-75.

"Trends in Rankings of Economics Departments in the U.S.: An Update,” Economic

Inquiry, (April 1996), pp. 378-400, with Mitias.

Articles in Books:

The following articles appear in Louisiana's Fiscal Alternatives: Finding Permanent

Solutions to Recurring Budget Crises, edited by James A. Richardson (LSU Press: Baton

Rouge, LA 1988).

"The Structure of the Louisiana Economy," pp. 9-26. (Reprinted in Louisiana Since the

Longs, Vol. 9 of Louisiana Purchase Bicentennial Series, Center for Louisiana Studies,

University of Southwestern Louisiana.)

"Mineral Taxes and Revenues and Budgetary Stability," pp. 117-142 with James

Richardson.

### Page 6

"The Economics of a State Lottery," pp. 315-328, with E. Ryan.

"The Economics of Casino Gambling," pp. 329-340, with E. Ryan.

"Louisiana in the 1990s: A Different Decade," The Southwest Economy in the 1990s: A

Different Decade, edited by G.P.Driscoll and S.P.A. Brown (Norwell, Mass: Kluwer

Publishers, 1991), pp. 139-146.

Louisiana Business Review Articles:

"Should Louisiana License Automobile Mechanics," Louisiana Business Review (January

1975), pp. 2-5.

"Revenue Projections for Louisiana State Government, Fiscal Years 1974-1975 -

1979 -1980", Louisiana Business Review (February 1975), with Thomas Beard.

"The Petroleum Industry in Louisiana," Louisiana Business Review (March 1977).

"Louisiana's Oil and Gas Severance Tax: An Historical Review, “Louisiana Business

Review, (July 1978), with James Richardson.

"The Changing Structure of the Louisiana Economy: 1940-1976," Louisiana Business

Review, (September 1978).

"The Prospects for 1979)," Louisiana Business Review (December 1978).

"Demographic Shifts and the Economy of the 1980's," Louisiana Business Review (April

1980).

"The Louisiana Economy in the 1970's: A Decade of Growth and Internal Shifts,"

Louisiana Business Review (Spring 1981). (Reprinted in Louisiana Since the Longs, Vol.

9 of Louisiana Purchase Bicentennial Series, Center for Louisiana Studies, University of

Southwestern Louisiana.)

"Louisiana Job Outlook: A Forecast of the State's Industrial and Occupational

Employment to 1990," Louisiana Business Review (Spring 1982), pp. 6-11.

"The Louisiana Economic Outlook for 1983: Part I and II,” Louisiana Business Review

(Spring 1983), with Richardson and Jamal.

"Improvement Strategy? Louisiana's 1984 Economic Forecast," Louisiana Business

Review (Fall 1983), with Richardson, Molina, and Jamal, pp.6-15.

### Page 7

"Louisiana Economic Outlook to 1986," Louisiana Business Review (Fall 1984), with

Richardson and Jamal.

Louisiana Economic Outlooks:

"The 1985 Louisiana Economic Outlook," Division of Research Publication, (December

1985), with Richardson and Jamal.

"The 1986 Louisiana Economic Outlook," College of Business Administration, LSU

(October 1986), with Richardson and Jamal.

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook for 1988 and 1989," College of Business

Administration, LSU (October 1987), with Richardson and Jamal.

"The Louisiana Economic Outlook for 1989 and 1990," College of Business

Administration, LSU (October 1988), with Richardson and Jamal.

"The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1990 and 1991," College of Business, LSU, (October

1989), with Richardson and Jamal.

"The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1991 and 1992," College of Business, LSU, (October

1990), with Richardson and Jamal.

"The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1992 and 1993," College of Business, LSU, (October

1991), with Richardson and Jamal.

"The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1993 and 1994," College of Business, LSU, (October,

1992 ), with Richardson and Jamal.

"The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1994 and 1995," College of Business, LSU, (October,

1993), with Richardson and Jamal.

"The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1995 and 1996," College of Business, LSU, (October,

1994), with Richardson and Jamal.

"The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1996 and 1997," College of Business, LSU (October,

1995), with Richardson and Jamal.

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1997 and 1998”, College of Business, LSU (October

1996), with Richardson and Jamal. 59 pages.

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1998 and 1999,” College of Business, LSU

(September 1997), with Richardson and Jamal. 67 pages.

### Page 8

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1999 and 2000”, College of Business, LSU

(September 1998), with Richardson and Jamal. 84 pages.

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2000 and 2001”, College of Business, LSU

(September 1999), with Richardson and Jamal. 87 pages

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2001-2002”, College of Business, LSU (September

2000) with Jamal and Richardson.

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2002-2003”, College of Business, LSU, (September

2001), with Richardson and Jamal, 88 pages.

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2003-2004”, College of Business, LSU, (September

2002), with Richardson and Jamal, 94 pages.

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2004-2005”, College of Business, LSU, (September

2003), with Richardson and Jamal, 98 pages.

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2005-2006”, College of Business, LSU, (October

2004), with Richardson and Jamal, 99 pages.

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2006-2007”, College of Business, LSU, (November

2005), with Richardson, 80 pages.

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2007-200 8 ”, College of Business, LSU, (October

200 6 ), with Richardson, 80 pages.

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2008-2009”, College of Business, LSU, (Octo ber

200 7 ), with Richardson, 98 pages.

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2009-20 10 ”, College of Business, LSU, (October

200 8 ), with Richardson, 91 pages.

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2010 -20 11 ”, College of Business, LSU, (October

200 9 ), with Richardson, 93 pages.

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2011-20 12 ”, College of Business, LSU, (October

20 1 0), with Richardson, 90 pages.

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2012-20 13 ”, College of Business, LSU, (October

20 11 ), with Richardson, 104 pages.

### Page 9

Technical Papers and Book Reviews:

"An Economic Evaluation of On-the-Job Training Conducted under the Auspices of the

Bureau of Indian Affairs in Oklahoma: Concepts and Preliminary Findings," Toward

Economic Development for Native American Communities, Joint Economic Print, 91st

Congress, January 1970, pp. 171-190, with David Stevens.

"Economic Profiles, Personal Income and Earnings Data for Louisiana State Planning

Districts, SMSA Parishes, and Non-SMSA Parishes: 1929-1968," Occasional Paper No.

2, Divi sion of Research, College of Business, Louisiana State University, with Thomas R.

Beard and Jan W. Duggar, (February, 1971), 164 pages. Reprinted in Master Plan

Supplement, State of Louisiana Coordinating Council for Higher Education, 1972, Baton

Rouge.

"Book Review: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Manpower Policies: Proceedings of a North

American Conference, May, 1969, by G.G. Sommers and W.D. Wood in Industrial and

Labor Relations Review (October, 1970), pp. 133-134.

"Should Louisiana Adopt a State Lottery?" A Report Submitted to Governor Edwin

Edwards by the Governor's Council on Economic Advisors, Louisiana State University,

Division of Research (September, 1972), with Thomas Beard and William Silvia, Jr.

"The Office Industry: A Potential Source of Economic Growth for Louisiana," Issue Paper

No. 1, Louisiana Office of State Planning (December 1973), 20 pages, with Jan Duggar.

"Economic Analysis of the Chemical Industry in Louisiana," Report for the Louisiana

Chemical Association published by the Division of Research, Louisiana State University

(November 1976), 49 pages, with G. Randolph Rice.

An Econometric Analysis of Louisiana's Energy Sector: The First Step

-- Regional

Production Analysis, for Center for Energy Studies, LSU (July 1983), 67 pages.

Tax Compendium for State of Louisiana, for the Legislative Fiscal Office, Fall 1975, 393

pages, with James Richardson.

The Severance Tax: Its Long-Term Potential, for Department of Conservation, March

1977, 155 pages, with James Richardson.

The Energy Crisis and the Employment of Black CETA Participants in Louisiana in the

1980's, for U.S. Department of Labor under a grant with Southern University (May 1981).

### Page 10

The Taxation of Natural Resources by States (with Richardson), for U.S. Department of

the Interior (Fall 1981), 154 pages.

Models for Forecasting Hammond Sales Tax Revenues and for Estimating the Impact on

Revenues of New Industry, for the City of Hammond (January 1982).

Energy Impact analysis: Petrochemical Industry, report for Louisiana Department of

Natural Resources, December, 1983. 52 pages plus appendices.

The Petroleum Industry in Louisiana, report prepared for The Mid-Continent Oil and Gas

Association, 1983, 29 pages. Reprinted in Hearings before the Subcommittee on Panama

Canal/Outer Continental Shelf of Committee on

Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, 98th Congress, 2nd Session,

March 9, 1984, Houma, Louisiana. Updated, December 1996, 47 pages.

The Chemical Industry in Louisiana: Economic Profile, a report prepared for the Louisiana

Chemical Association, September 1989, 44 pages. Revised, January 1991, April 1993,

and August 1996 (50 pages).

The Economic Impact of LSU on the Baton Rouge Metropolitan Area, Department of

Economics, LSU,

Summer 1990, 15 pages.

It's Not Just Entertainment: The Impact of the LSU Athletic Department on the Baton

Rouge Metropolitan Statistical Area, Department of Economics, LSU, May 1991, 30

pages. Updated February 1998 with Jennifer Trinca, 31 pages. Revised, January 2002.

An Economic Analysis of the Economic Expansion Program as Proposed by Texaco to the

State of Louisiana, for the Louisiana Attorney General, November, 1993, 88 pages, with

James Richardson.

A Report on Judicial Salaries in Louisiana for Louisiana's Judicial Compensation

Commission (December, 1995), 19 pages. Revised biannually.

Estimating the Economic Impact of Constructing a 50-Year Wet Dam at Darlington, for

Amite River Basin Drainage and Water Conservation District, May, 1997, with Robert

Newman. 17 pages.

Estimation of Recreational Benefits for the Proposed Darlington Reservoir: A Contingent

Valuation Study, for the Amite River Basin Drainage and Water Conservation District,

June, 1997, with Robert Newman. 54 pages.

### Page 11

Establishing a Master Economic Development Plan for Louisiana: Targeting Industries for

Recruitment, for the Louisiana Department of Economic Development, October 1997,

135 pages, with W.J. Moore and Geoffrey Turnbull.

Gambling in Louisiana: A Benefit/Cost Analysis, with Tim Ryan, Janet Speyrer, et al.,

prepared for the Louisiana Gaming Commission, April, 1999, 107 pages.

Measuring the Economic Benefits of the Casino Industry on the Louisiana Economy

prepared for the Casino Association of Louisiana, March 2005, 75 pages.

Other Publications:

"Peering into the Crystal Ball: How Will 1979 Turn Out?" Entree Magazine (September

1979).

"Focus on Louisiana", The Southern Banker (January 1982), with W.F. Staats.

"Louisiana Energy," Economic Review of Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, (October

1983), pp. 12-16.

Special Editor, Louisiana Visions - 89, published goals statement of Governor Buddy

Roemer's Administration.

Our firm has prepared approximately 100 economic impact studies for various

clients that are not listed in this resume because in most cases they are proprietary

to the clients.



## Symposia

Lecturer for LSU Executive Program, approximately 30 years

Lecturer for LSU Executive MBA Program, since inception, until 2002.

Lecturer, Louisiana Bankers Association School of Banking, approximately 15 years.

School now closed.

Course co-coordinator and lecturer, Managerial Economics section of Graduate School of

Banking of the South, approximately 36 years.

50 -70 speeches a year on the "State of the Economy" to various groups.



## Testimony

Testified frequently on state revenue estimates before Joint Legislative Budget Committee.

### Page 12

Before Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C. on a comparison of the New

England and Louisiana economies, September 1976.

Before State Legislative Committee on Revenue and Fiscal Affairs on the topic of the

future of Louisiana State revenues, October 1976.

Before Joint Committee on Health and Human Resources on Unemployment in Louisiana,

January 1977.

Before Joint Committee on Economies in State Government, March 1986.

Before state legislative committee on the ethanol industry, Spring 1986.

Before a state legislative committee on the repeal of the right- to -work law, Spring 1992.

Before Public Service Commission on Agrielectric rate case, 1996.

Before Judicial Compensation Committee, Spring, 1996.

Before Public Service Commission on South Central Bell effort to move into the long

distance market in Louisiana, Fall 1997.

Before the Louisiana Legislature in 2001 on the Harrah’s Casino tax cut.

Before the Louisiana Legislature in 2001 & 2002 on the sales below cost law on gasoline

in Louisiana.

Before the Legislature on the proposed Quality Jobs Act.

Several other appearances before state legislative committees.

Expert Witness on Louisiana Economy

-- state and federal courts.



## Contract Research at LSU ( excluding LCS, Inc. contracts)

Principal Investigator, with James Richardson

-- January 1975 to December

1975

-- $75,000 contract with State Legislative Fiscal Office to build a model for

forecasting state revenues. Includes a 393-page Tax Compendium for Louisiana.

Principal Investigator, with James Richardson

-- March 1976 to February 1977

-- $22,000

contract with State Department of Conservation to build a long run model for forecasting

oil and gas production in the state. The final 156-page document included not only the

forecasting model but also a historical review of Louisiana severance tax laws, a

comparison with severance tax laws in other states, and a theoretical discussion of optimal

state severance tax strategy.

### Page 13

Principal Investigator

-- contract submitted jointly with UNO to establish a University

Development Center for the LSU System. Total Contract of $137,000 for six months

awarded by Economic Development Administration and State of Louisiana. Will continue

over 4-5 year period.

Principal Investigator, with James Richardson

-- $4,500 contract with Small Business

Administration to study effects of energy shortage on small businesses in Region VI.

Principal Investigato r -- $15,000 contract through Southern University with the U.S.

Department of Labor to investigate optimal growth industries and occupations for CETA

trainees.

Principal Investigator, with James Richardson

-- $72,510 contract with U.S. Department

of the Interior to investigate the properties of an optimal severance tax.

Principal Investigator, with James Richardson

-- $65,000 contract with Louisiana Board

of Regents to build an econometric model of the state.

Principal Investigator, with James Richardson

-- $17,500 contract with LSU's Center for

Energy Studies to construct an econometric model of Louisiana's energy sector.

Principal Investigator, with James Richardson

-- $55,000 contract with Louisiana Board

of Regents to expand the Louisiana econometric model.

Principal Investigator

-- $6540 grant with Greater Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce to

conduct an area wage survey, 1992.

Principal Investigator

-- $12,000 grant with Judicial Compensation Commission, 1995.

Principal Investigator, with Robert Newman

-- $80,000 grant with Amite River Basin

Drainage & Water Conservation District, July 1996-June, 1997.

Principal Investigator

-- $12,500 project with Japan Foundation, Louisiana Department of

Economic Development, JETRO, Port Of South Louisiana and Entergy Corporation to

host and conduct a Symposium on Trade Between Japan and the U.S. held March 18,

1997.

Principal Investigator, with Geoffrey Turnbull, W. J. Moore and Elizabeth Woodside

-- $81,696 project to conduct targeted industry study for the state of Louisiana for the

Louisiana Department of Economic Development and Louisiana’s Investor-Owned

Utilities, January, 1997 - June, 1997.

Principal Investigator, with Geoffrey Turnbull, W. J. Moore and Elizabeth Woodside

-- $45,951 grant to continue investigation of targeted industries for the Louisiana

### Page 14

Department of Economic Development and Louisiana-owned utilities, July 1 - October 1,

1997.

Principal investigator, with Douglas McMillin, Dek Terrell, Robert Newman, W.J. Moore,

and Daryl McKee

-- $228,480 grant with Louisiana Department of Labor to (a) generate

occupational forecasts to 2006 and (b) construct a scorecard for evaluating various

training programs, July 1, 1997 - August 30, 1998.

Principal Investigator, with Carter Hill, Michael Hartline, and Ed Holton

-- $117,615 grant

the Baton Rouge Community College to forecast enrollments and develop curriculum for

the junior college, November 1, 1997 - August 31, 1998.

Principal Investigator, with David Johnson

--- $77,956 grant with the Louisiana

Department of Transportation and Development (through UNO) to develop a model for

determining the rate of return on various projects in the State’s intermodal transportation

plan. May, 1998-February, 1999.

Principal Investigator with Nick Apostolou and Abe Biswas. $65,000 grant through the

Board of Regents with support from Hibernia Bank to provide consulting services to inner

city businesses using second year graduate assistants. This is a 3-year, continuing

grant...started in July, 1998... to be maintained at $65,000 a year. It provides six MBAs

$2,500 a semester to work on the projects.

Principal investigator with Dek Terrell and Doug McMillin. Grant with Louisiana

Department of Labor (through UNO) to generate industry employment forecasts to 2008.

Approximately $100,000.

Principal investigator with Dek Terrell and Doug McMillin. Grant with Louisiana

Department of Labor (through UNO) to generate industry employment forecasts to 2010.

Approximately $100,000.

Have raised approximately $9,000 a year for Department through sales of Louisiana

Economic Outlook. This amount raised an extra $10,000 due to getting a corporate

sponsorship from a bank.



## University Committees

Search Committee - Policy Director, Center for Energy Studies 1988-89.

Search Committee - Chancellor, LSU-Baton Rouge, 1989.

Selection Committee-LSU Alumni Hall of Distinction, 1990-95.

LSU Long-Range Planning Committee, 1989-1995.

Athletic Council, 1991-1996

University Steering Committee - United Way, 1991-1994.

Institutional Effectiveness Committee of SAC's Review, 1992-1995.

Committee to Review Declaration of Financial Exigency Guidelines - 1994-1996.

### Page 15

University Program Review Council, 1996 - 98.

College Executive Committee, 1983 - 1998.



## Participation in Professional Meetings

Have presented papers, served as discussant and chaired sessions at meetings of the

Southern Economic Association, Western Economic Association, Southwest Social

Science Association, Industrial Relations Research Association, Mid-Continent Regional

Science Association, Mid-South Economics Association, Academy of Louisiana

Economists, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas,

Association of University Bureaus of Economic Research, and Southern Regional Science

Association.



## Awards and Scholarships

Recipient of Odessa College Tuition Scholarship

Recipient of two scholarships at Texas Tech University

-- 1964 and 1965

National Science Foundation Summer Research Traineeship

-- 1968

Dissertation Fellowship

-- Oklahoma State University Research Foundation

Junior Division College, Master Teacher Award, Spring 1986.

MBA Association, Professor of the Year, 1988.

Outstanding Teacher of MBAs, 1988-89, chosen by Business Administration Leadership

Council.

Student Government Association Award for Outstanding In-Class Teaching, 1989.

Erich Sternberg Foundation Excellence in Teaching Award, College of Business, 1990-91.

Outstanding MBA Teacher, 1993-94.

Excellence on Teaching Award, Department of Economics, 1994-95.



## Professional and Scholastic Organizations

Phi Kappa Phi American Economic Association

Phi Theta Kappa Southern Economic Association

Omicron Delta Epsilon Regional Science Association



## Consulting Activities

Coordinating Council for Higher Education

-- State of Louisiana

Gulf South Research Institute

Mississippi Labor Mobility Project

-- Star, Inc., Hattiesburg, Miss.

Office of State Planning

-- State of Louisiana

Department of Natural Resources

-- State of Louisiana

U.S. Employment and Training Administration

Attorney General's Office

-- State of Louisiana

### Page 16

Manpower Advisory Council

-- East Baton Rouge Parish

Applications for new Savings and Loan Associations

Applications for new Banks

City of Hammond

Capital Area United Way

City of Baton Rouge

Mid

- Co ntinent Oil and Gas Association

Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Association

Process Services, Inc.

Goudchaux's Department Stores

Louisiana Department of Labor

Exxon Corporation

Louisiana Association of Business and Industry

South Central Bell

Charlyn Enterprises

Louisiana Chemical Association

Premier Bancorp

Louisiana League of Savings Institutions

Louisiana Department of Economic Development

Associated Grocers

Placid Oil Refinery

Waste Management of North America

Borden, Inc.

Lake Charles Memorial Hospital

Jo hn H. Carter, Inc.

Louisiana Lottery Corporation

Cajun Electric Power Cooperative

Louisiana Department of Labor

Shell Chemical Company

Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates

Hancock Bank

Hibernia National Bank

Louisiana Gaming Commission

Coushatta Indian Tribe

Jazz Holding Company

Baton Rouge Area Convention & Visitors Bureau

Jack Rome, Jr. & Associates

Louisiana Press Association

Louisiana Home Builders Association

Harrah’s Land Based Casino

Murphy Oil

Louisiana Nurses Association

Transwestern Properti es

LSU Athletic Department

The Governor’s Military Advisory Board

### Page 17

Ascension Parish Government

Louisiana Industrial Development Executives Association

Office of Addictive Disorders-Department of Health & Hospitals

Louisiana Racing Commission

PSI Engineers

Louisiana Airport Authority

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources

Casino Association of Louisiana

Lamar-Dixon Expo Center

Penn National Gaming

Cleco Corporation

R.W. Day Associates

Emerald Bayou Studios

Crescent City Towers, LLC

Capitol One Financial

Re d River Waterway Commission

City of Baton Rouge

Northrop Grumman Corporation

Minerals Management Service

Wampold Companies

One Call of Louisiana

Gulf Coast Coca Cola Bottling Company

Louisiana Department of Economic Development

Tenaska Corporation

Lake Forest Mall, LLC

Offshore Marine Services Association

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources

Louisiana Workforce Commission

CITGO Corporation

R. W. Day

Gramercy Alumina

Alexandria Airport Commission

Riverplace Consulting

Hartex Corporation

Entergy Corporation

River Birch Corporation

Beer League of Louisiana

Port Fourchon

Ranger Gas

Team Honda

Saint Gabriel Downs Corporation

Port of Shreveport

Leucadia LLC

Elliott Management, LLC

Michoud Assembly Facility

### Page 18

Lake Forest, LLC

Port of Caddo-Bossier

College of Engineering - LSU

Chesapeake Energy

Nucor

Sundrop Fuels

U. L. Coleman Companies

Sasol Corporation

Ochsner Hospitals

# Exhibit “7”