Exemption No. 10598
UNITED STATES OF AMERJCA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL A VIATION ADMIN ISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 2059 1

In the matter of th e petition of

BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON CANADA LIMITED


### for an exemption from § 

### 27.1 ofTitle 14, Code of 

### Feder al Regulations Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0123

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION By letter dated January 1 6,2012, Mr. M. Pery ea, VP BHTCL Eng ineering, Bell Helico pter Textron Canada Limited (Bell Canada), 12,800 rue de I' Aen ir , Mirabel, Quebec, 171 IR4 , Canada petitioned the Federal Aviati on Administration (FAA) on behalf of Bell Canada for an exemption from § 

### 27. 1 of Title 14 , Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, 

### if granted, would allow type certification of the Be ll 429 model helicopter, with an increase in the maximum gross weight from 7,000 pounds to 7,500 pounds, as a normal category rotorcraft.


### The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:
14 CFR section 27.1 (a), as amended by Amendment 27-37, spec ifies , in pertinent part, that this part prescribes airworthiness standards for the iss ue of type certi ficates, and changes to those certificates, for normal category rotorcraft with maximum weights of 7 ,000 pounds or less.


### The petitioner supports its request with the following information:
This section is a summary ofthe relevant information from the petitioner 's request

. The petitioner states that granting an exemption to Bell Canada wou ld permit owners and operators of Bell 429 helicopters to carry more fuel or additional equipment, which would increase the level of safety of the Bell 429. The petitioner further states that the ability to2

carry more fuel would afford operators opportunities for practical instrument flight rules (IFR) operations, avoiding the perceived necessity to fly in marginal visual meteorological conditions in order to meet operational commitments.
The petitioner states that the Bell 429 is certified for single-pilot IFR (SPIFR) and include s a dual autopilot system in the basic aircraft design. The petitioner further states that the stability and control augmentation system function included in the autopilot provides inherent stability and facilitates better situational awareness. The petitioner adds that the autopilot can be coupled to the navigation functions to include the global positioning system (OPS) wide
area augmentation system (WAAS) and with the WAAS approach feature , operators will be able to accomplish departures and approaches to previously unavailable landing sites such as hospital heliports or pre-arranged rural pick up points

. The petitioner states that the Bell 429 is IFR certified and includes equipment that is in addition to the minimum equipment required under part 27

. The petitioner adds that the Bell 429 is certified for use with specialized equipment that can be added in order to minimize risks encountered for specific mission profiles. This includes a protected tail rotor system, traffic co lli sion avo id ance system (TeAS), certifi cation for ditching, weather radar, and a supplemental type certificate (STC) for health and usage monitoring system equipm ent. The petitioner notes that o ther equipment that can be installed includes an enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS), helicopter terrain awareness sys tem (HTAWS) and an automatic deployable emergency locator transmitter. The petitioner further states that an additional weight capability w ill permit the addition of suc h equipment without the need to trade off equipment for payload/fuel.
The petitioner states that the additional weight increase for the twin-engine Bell 429 SPIFR is 628 pounds. This weight considers not just the engine weight but the additional structural requirements. In add ition to the structure, there is a cascading weight increase associated with the category A installation. The additional structure requires more fuel to provide operationally su itable range. The additional fuel requires additional structure and the Bell 429 must meet the crash resistant fuel tank design. Thus, the Bell 429 is penalized more than previous part 27 designs in meeting the new rules.
The petitioner states that there is a positive impact both from newjob creation and dollars into the economy. The petitioner estimates that 400 additional Bell jobs will 

### be created and that 75 percent of those jobs will be in the United States. The petitioner estimates that Bell 429 ship sales in the next five years will go from 150 to 500 ships and 150 million dollars in direct supplier sales will be generated to support production. The petitioner further estimates that an additional 1,600 indirect jobs will be created and long term spares and support would yield Bell and suppliers additional jobs and significant revenue on the order of 3.3 billion dollars over a nventy year period.

### 3

The petitioner states that an additional maximum weight capability would minimize operational ri sks for all Bell 429 operators. The petitioner further s tates that currently, the Bell 429 at 3, 125 kg (7,000 Ib s) is not capable of carrying a full load of fuel with 8 occupants (the maximum number of occupants certified for the Bell 429) and for operations the amount of fuel carried is calculated to meet the mi ss ion requirements to maximi ze payload availab le for pas se ngers
. The petitioner states that with add itional weight capability, the Bell 429
wou ld have the ability to carry more fu e l and he nce provide for greater fuel margin for missions , re su lting in an increased level of safety and benefit to the public.
The petitioner states specific types of operations that utiliz e the Bell 429 s uch as helicopter air ambulance; o il and gas exploration , product io n and support; public safety operation s; a nd utility and the publi c benefits that are de ri ved from s uch operations. These benefits of greater weight capability , noted by the petitioner, for these types operations can be summarized as e nhancing the operational mission capability of the Bell 4 29 by improving operational safety and efficiency and by increas ing payload a nd range capability. The petition er contend s that the benefits associated with enhancing the operational mission capability of the Bell 429 will be reali zed by the public.
In concluding , the pet iti oner reemphas izes that the more appropriate ce rtification focus for part 27 rotorc raft s hould be on technical complexity and safety. The petitioner further emph asizes that the safety level of the Bell 429 , base d on current de s ign s, is a s ignificant improvement a nd in some cases exceeds the design leve l of curren t part 29 rotorcraft. 

### Summary of Comments Received:
A summary of the pet ition was published in the Federal Register on March 6, 20 12 (77 FR 1 3385). Numerous comments were received. T he majority o f the commenters were Bell 429 o perators or those associated with the product and are in favor of the exemption. Among th e comme nters opposed to the exemption were othe r rotorcraft manufacturers, a foreign part 29 rotorcraft producer , and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
This section is a summary of the rele vant information from the comments rece ived in the federal docket management syste m. Many of the commenters in favor of gran ting the exempti on point to the Bell 429 's design and performance capabilities to operate at the 7,500 pounds maximum gross we ight (MOW). Some of these commenters believe the aircraft has exemplary performance, especially in hot climates and high e lev atio ns, and is not meeting its full mission potential and marketability because of the 7,000 pound MOW limit. Some conunenters also believe that the Bell 4 29 airframe , avionics, and certain safety features exceed or are comparable to o ther part 29 rotorcraft curre ntl y in use.4

Other commenters 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 all owed weight would pr ov id e. This includ es, the capab ility to operate under both
visual flight rules and [FR, carry extra mission equipment and additional passengers (operational or patient)

. and carry additio nal fuel for longer range fli ghts (e.g., to service additional areas) , extended on-site loiteri ng, and reduced en route refueling during mi ss ions (for example, emergency medical services, law enforcement, utility and gu lf oil platform transport). A com.menter also stated that added onboard fuel also reduces costs of enroute refuelin g and noise abatement at airports used for remotely managed fuel cache s ite s. Another commenter believes the current weight restriction directl y compromises the quality of patient care. A congressional commenter encouraged the approval of the weight increase to increase serv ice capability in a safe and cost effective way, and to se rve his state's constituents through air ambulance and emergency medical serv ice providers.
Another commenter was in favor of the exemption s ince it provides the ability to install additional flight safety equipment in the Bell 4 29, suc h as, HTA WS, twin engine full authority digital engine controls, latest glass cockpit technology, dual automatic flight control system, rad io altimeter, OPS supported WAAS, night vision goggles, wire strike protection system, cockpit voice recording and flight data recorder system, etc. Some commenters also recommended the FAA require installation of the equipme nt contained in the similar exemption granted by Transport Canada Civi l Av iat ion (TCCA).
There were additional comments for the need to consider increasing the weight limit for part 27 rotorcraft above the current 7,000 MOW , partiall y because of the techno logical advances in thi s category of rotorcraft.
Comments in opposition to the exemption s tated that Bell Canada did not pr ovide sufficient evidence to s upport their claim that thi s exemption, if granted, would be in the public's interest. Also, from the opposing comments , there was an argument that approving thi s exemption would favor one company and provide a spec ial favor by the FAA to this one manufacturer, resulting in unfair competition by benefiting economically the one manufacturer (Bell Canada).
Some opposing commenters argued that approving the exemption is contrary to the public interest, is an attack on the current FAA and EASA harmonized type certification and airworthiness standards , implying a lower level of safety for a part 27 product , would undermine the integrity and fairness of the airworthiness standards of part 27 certification and safety protections , and would create a terrible precedent for the FAA. There was an added comment that this exemption would also compromise the safety objectives of distinct airworthiness standards between parts 27 and 29.

### 5

In opposing the petition for exemption, there was an argument that it was Bell Canada's decision to certify the Bell 429 model under part 27 rather than part 29. Also, that a grant of this petition for exemption would be tantamount to Bell Canada obtaining a benefit of transport category certification without the added cost of meeting the more stringent part 29 airworthiness standards.
A commenter also suggested that 

### ifthe FAA wanted to consider a generally applicable change in the part 27 rotorcraft maximum weight limit, there should be a working group convened comprised of representatives from industry and other major national airworthiness authorities.
In addition to comments received during the public comment period, a comment was received shortly after the close of the conunent period, well before deliberations on the petition's merits, commenter submissions, and the FAA's decision. This submittal, which has been placed in the docket, did not affect the FAA decision in this matter, or alter any of the discussions that appear in this document.
The FAA's response to the commenters summarized points above:
We agree that the installation of certain equipment that has already been FAA approved and other equipment that Bell Canada proposes to have approved may increase the operational level of safety of the Bell 429. However, other normal category rotorcraft similar to the Bell 429 have been configured for helicopter emergency medical services, offshore, law enforcement, and other operations with similar safety enhancing equipment approved that did not require an exemption to increase the MOW beyond the 7,000 pound maximum weight limit. While the advantages of the additional equipment may increase the level of safety

. the support for the increase in gross weight of the aircraft appears to primarily be for economic reasons, thus the perceived benefit to the public. Further, the fundamental philosophy in the evolution of the FAA airworthiness standards is a continued enhancement in safety with an accepted different level of safety based on gross weight. Currently, rotorcraft that exceed 7,000 pounds MOW are expected to meet the higher levels of safety prescribed by Part 29, transport category rotorcraft. To allow a rotorcraft to be certified at a higher weight than allowed by the regulations undermines the very philosophy that has served the United States aviation community since the beginning. Conunents did not indicate that the community at large believes the 7000 lb limit is inappropriate. However, the FAA will issue a notice in the future to seek public input on thi s topic.
We agree that the operational capability of the Bell 429 could be enhanced with an increase in MOW. However , that is true for any normal category helicopter. Further, there are other normal category helicopters currently available in the market that can achieve similar

### 6

operational capabilities proposed 

### by Bell Canada that did not require an exempt ion for increased gross weight.
While we appreciate the corrunenter s ubmi ss ions, the comments have not provided sufficient rational to 

### support the overall safety benefit o/the exemption requested. Nor have th e 

### commenters' submissio ns demonstrated that a grant ofthe relief sought wou ld provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided 

### by the rules from which exemption is sought (compliance with part 29 transport category rotorcraft airworthiness standard s). Any change to the current philosophy of 

### rOlorcraft airworthiness standard s need s to be done 

### in a public forum. Therefore, the FAA will issue a notice in the future to seek public input on the appropriateness of 7000 lb as the current MGW of Part 27. Additionally. we will seek public input as to whether there are more appropriate certification focus areas, such as

" technical comp lexity and safety" 

### as suggested by Bell Canada.


### The FAA's 

### analysis is as follows:
The type certification standards for nonnal category rotorcraft in 14 CFR part 27 are "minimum" standards. While the FAA agrees that th e level of safety may be enhanced by the approved installation of additional certified equipment in the Bell 429, the FAA does not agree that this can or should be 

### accompl ished through the grant ofa blanket exemption from th e applicability of part 29 for a rotorcraft we ighing more than 7 ,000 pounds.

An 

### increase in MGW could allow Bell 429 operators to improve their operational capabilities primarily benefining those operators and their customers. 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 pound MGW. Comparable helicopters at a simi lar weight class that are part 29 certified wou ld also be at a disadvantage s ince they were required to meet more costly part 29 certification requirements. Further, there are other nonnal category helicopters currently available in the market that can achieve 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 enhance s the marketability of the Bell 429 when compared to non·category A helicopters.
The additional safety enhancing equipment offered as part of the basic Bell 429 helicopter or a s optional equipment was a Bell Canada bu sine ss deci s ion to 

### allow the Bell 429 to be a competiti ve aircraft in the market place

. Much of the operational safety enhancing equipment identified 

### in the petition is common in respect to what is already installed and in use by other part 27 helicopters (e

. g
., radar altimeter. TeAS , wire strike protection , EGPWSIHTAWS , and
weather radar).7

We agree that jobs in the United States could be created with the sale of more than 300 n ew helicopters. If there i s a d emand for that many h elico pters, then helicopter manufacturers will fill that need. Like Be ll Canada, most of the non-dom estic manufacturer s also have faci liti es in the US. Therefore, we believe that jobs will 

### be added regardless of the manufacturer 

### if there are 

### additional helicopter sale s as sugge sted 

### by the petitioner. H owever, 

### it is important to remember that a decision to exempt an app li cant from FAA safety standards i s, and sh ou ld remain , primarily a safety decis ion.
The FAA acknowledges that granting an exemption from 

### § 27. 1 wou ld probably increase the potential usefulness of the Bell 429, to the current operators. However, we anticipate that there
w ill be very 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 on ly by Bell Canada, Bell 429 operators , and their customers.
It is currently poss ible for Bell 429 ope rators to seek and obtain approval for installation of additional equipment, if the mission dictates. This could necessitate the removal of some equipment to comply w ith the part 27 we ight limitation

. Other nonnal category helicopters accommodate simi lar type equipment. The availability of these other part 27 helicopters remains
an option for operators. While realizing that not grantin g the relief sought could have an eco nomic impact on ex isting Bell 42 9 owners and operators, for the r easo ns stated above, we do not see the overall public benefit to the entire commu nity.
The certification procedures for aeronautical products and parts together w ith the airworthiness
stand a rd s in the 14 CFR (Federal Aviation Regul at io ns) are intended to establ ish varying levels of safety for different aeronautical products. As these regulations developed over time , the FAA has based the distinction between nonnal and transport category rotorcraft certification requirements, in part, on the maximum certified gross weig ht of the aircraft. The gross we ig ht 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 complex ity and perfonnance 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 establi shing a compelling safety rationale for each additional safety requirement. Parts 27 and 29 each establish an appropriate minimum level of safety for the design of nonnal 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 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. The FAA has only granted exemptions to 

### § 27.1 in one s ituation , directly related to rulemaking that increased the weight limitation for all part 27 helicopters. In 1995 , the FAA established an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) effort to recommend new or revised requirements for increasing the gross weight and passenger limitations for nonnal

### 8

category rotorcraft. Thi s ARAC includ ed representatives f rom the FAA, Joint Aviation Authorities , and TCCA as we ll as US and European heli copte r manufacturers.
This ARAC agreed that a gross weight limitation increase of part 27 to 7 ,000 pounds was appropriate. This was primarily because the evolution of the rotorcraft desi gn standards (inc luding the implementation o f new cras hworthiness regulatory requirements intended to improve occupant survivability in the event of a crash) had dri ven an increase to the gros s weight of modem day part 27 helicopters and impacted the entire helicopter community. In conjunction with thi s increase, the ARAC agreed to certain increase d design standards for part 27. Shortly after the ARAC recommendations were accepted by the FAA, but prior to final rulemaking , the FA A gran t ed three exemptions to all ow an increase in gross we ight to speci fic helicopters. In all three cases , the FAA imposed all o f the newly proposed rules, incl uding the en hanced crashworthiness regul atory req uirements.
The only other similar part 27 petition for gross weight increase was receive d in 2 007. After reviewin g the reason s for that reque s t, the FAA found the request did not diff e r materiall y from previously denied requ ests. The FAA de ni ed that request wi thout public input because the denial was not precedent settin g. Similarly, thi s petition for exemption doe s not differ materiall y from prev iou s ly denied requests.
The argument made by the petitioner that an increase in gross weight for the Bell 429 is needed to accommodate the in stallation of safety enhancing equipment is not valid ju stification. An increase in gross weight for any nonnal category helicopter would accommo d ate the ins tallation of addi tional safety e nhanc in g eq uipm e nt. Designation of applicable type design airworthiness standards affect m or e than a product's level of safety. Under part 2 1 type certification procedures, the fir st step in establi s hing the certification basis for a roto rcraft is to refer t o the rotorcraft's MOW. An early design consideration for a rotorcraft type certifi cate ap plic ant is whether to design for compliance with part 27 or part 29. The development and manufacturing costs and market viabi li ty ofa rotorcraft hinge largely on its type certi fic ation basis. The app li cability secti ons in parts 27 and 29 create a leve l playing field for rotorcraft designers so that from an engi neering, investment and marketin g perspe ctive, all applicants work to the same regulatory expectation s. The exemptio n relief sought for the Bell 429 wou ld , if granted , place the BeJI429 at a compet iti ve advantage to other roto r craft over 7,000 pou nd s already required to meet part 29. Said diffe rentl y, the relief sought would, if granted. put existing part 29 rotorcraft manufacturers at a competitive disad vantage owing to the greater costs to certify and produce their products.
As indicated previously, the FAA will is sue a notice in the future to seek pub li c input to detennine if7000 Ib s is the correct MOW for part 27. Further, we will seek to detennine if the current parameters (i.e ., maximum weight and number of passenger seats) are the appropriate
ones for the future. or 

### ifany other criteria may be more meaningful to establish the safety targets

### 9

for the rotorcraft airworthiness standard s. We will also welcome entirely new ideas and concepts, 

### if those are supported 

### by the rotorcraft community consensus
. 

### The FAA's Decision: [n consideration of the foregoing and th e fact that this petition does not differ materially from
oth er petitions th at have been denied in the past , the FAA finds that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 4470 I, delegated to me 

### by the Administrator, the petition of Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited for an exemption from 14 

### eFR § 27.1 is hereby denied.


### Issued in Fort Worth , Texas, on August 13, 2012. 

# ,£n-n 

# JuM('-1C,4**n~li:-C** Kimberly K. Smitlf-l Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate Aircraft Certification Service