This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

34610

Vol. 63, No. 122

Thursday, June 25, 1998

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 27

[Docket No. 29247; Notice No. 98–4]

RIN 2120–AF33

Normal Category Rotorcraft Maximum

Weight and Passenger Seat Limitation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to

amend the airworthiness standards for

normal category rotorcraft. This

proposal would increase the maximum

weight limit from 6,000 to 7,000 pounds

and add a passenger seat limitation of

nine. The increase in maximum weight

is proposed to compensate for the

increased weight resulting from

additional regulatory requirements,

particularly recent requirements

intended to improve occupant

survivability in the event of a crash.

These changes are intended to update

current airworthiness standards to

provide the safety standards for normal

category rotorcraft of 7,000 pounds or

less.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before September 23, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the FAA, Office of the Chief

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket (AGC–

200), Docket No. , Room 915G, 800

Independence Avenue SW, Washington,

DC 20591. Comments submitted must be

marked Docket No. 29247. Comments

may also be sent electronically to the

following internet address: 9-nprmcmts@faa.dot.gov. Comments may be

examined in Room 915G weekdays

between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except

on Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lance Gant, Rotorcraft Standards Staff,

Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service, Fort Worth, Texas

76193–0110, telephone (817) 222–5114,

fax 817–222–5959.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Specifically, the FAA

invites comments and data relating to

the top hatch emergency exit proposed

in new section 14 CFR 27.805(a).

Comments relating to the

environmental, energy, federalism, or

economic impact that might result from

adopting the proposals in this notice are

also invited. Substantive comments

should be accompanied by cost

estimates. Comments must identify the

regulatory docket or notice number and

be submitted in triplicate to the Rules

Docket at the address specified under

the caption ADDRESSES.

All comments received, as well as a

report summarizing each substantive

public contact with FAA personnel on

this rulemaking, will be filed in the

docket. The docket is available for

public inspection before and after the

comment closing date.

All comments received on or before

the closing date will be considered

before taking action on this proposal.

Late-filed comments will be considered

to the extent practicable. The proposals

contained in this notice may be changed

in light of the comments received.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must include a preaddressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket No. 29247.’’ The postcard will be

date stamped and mailed to the

commenter.

Availability of NPRM’s

Using a modem and suitable

communications software, an electronic

copy of this document may be

downloaded from the FAA regulations

section of the Fedworld electronic

bulletin board service (telephone 703–

321–3339), the Federal Register’s

electronic bulletin board service

(telephone 202–512–1661), or the FAA’s

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory

Committee (ARAC) bulletin board

service (telephone: 800–322–2722 or

202–267–5948).

Internet users may reach the FAA’s

web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/

arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the Federal

Register’s webpage at http://

www.access.gpo.gov/suldocs/aces/

aces140.html for access to recently

published rulemaking documents.

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Office of Rulemaking, ARM–1,

800 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling

(202) 267–9680. Communications must

identify the notice number of this

NPRM.

Persons interested in being placed on

a mailing list for future NPRM’s should

request from the above office a copy of

Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, NPRM

Distribution System, that describes the

application procedure.

Background

Operational and design trends for

normal category rotorcraft are

approaching the current maximum

weight limitations. This proposal would

increase the maximum weight limitation

from 6,000 to 7,000 pounds and would

add a passenger seat limit of nine.

History

Since 1956, the FAA has based the

distinction between normal and

transport category rotorcraft certification

requirements on the certificated

maximum weight of the aircraft.

Initially, the FAA set the upper weight

limit for normal category rotorcraft at

6,000 pounds, based on the spectrum of

existing and anticipated designs at that

time. The 6,000-pound weight threshold

and associated airworthiness standards

have served the industry well for over

40 years.

In the 1970’s, manufacturers began

certificating new light twin-engine

rotorcraft in the 4,000 to 6,000 pound

weight class. Some single-engine

models were also converted to twinengines. This trend continues.

Meanwhile, the FAA certification

regulations evolved, gradually adding

more stringent safety requirements that

ultimately caused permanent increases

in empty weight. The high cost of

certification of transport category

rotorcraft, the increased stringency of

the current 14 CFR part 27 (part 27)

regulations, and the trend toward

modification of existing models have

resulted in several normal category
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 34611

helicopters nearing the current 6,000-

pound maximum weight limitation.

Increasing the 6,000-pound weight

limit for normal category rotorcraft was

not formally discussed with the FAA

until November 1991. At that time, a

manufacturer petitioned the FAA for a

regulatory exemption to allow a

rotorcraft to exceed the 6,000-pound

maximum weight limit specified for

normal category rotorcraft. A summary

of the petition was subsequently

published in the Federal Register (57

FR 4508, February 5, 1992) for public

comment. Comments were few and

divided. While some commenters were

in favor of the petition, others expressed

the view that a weight change should

not be permitted without considering

increased regulatory stringency and/or a

limit on the number of passengers. The

FAA determined that the petition did

not provide adequate justification nor

did it show that a grant of exemption

would be in the public interest. The

FAA denied the petition but stated in

the denial that a further study of the

issues would be in the public interest.

The diversity of comments prompted

the FAA to investigate the general issue

of a future rule change in more detail.

By letter dated April 1992 to rotorcraft

manufacturers and trade associations,

the FAA asked interested parties to

comment on the advisability of

increasing the current 6,000-pound

maximum weight limitation. They were

also asked to comment on safety criteria

that should be associated with a weight

limitation increase. Approximately 30

commenters responded to the request.

Although these responses contained no

specific objections to a future regulatory

increase in the maximum allowable

weight, the commenters articulated a

wide range of views regarding the scope

of such a revision.

Due to the level of interest in this

issue, the FAA held a public meeting on

February 2, 1994, immediately

following the Helicopter Association

International (HAI) Convention in

Anaheim, California. All interested

parties were given the opportunity to

present their views to help determine a

course of action that would be in the

best interest of the rotorcraft aviation

community. Consequently, the FAA and

the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA)

determined that there was a need to

review the maximum weight and

passenger seat limitation for normal

category rotorcraft.

Although not a part of this proposal,

the FAA Rotorcraft Directorate

identified a need to reevaluate the

certification standards for rotorcraft at

the low end of the maximum weight

spectrum as a result of information

gathered at this meeting. A joint FAA/

JAA/Industry Working Group was

tasked to reevaluate the maximum

weight and seat limitation issues for all

rotorcraft, including requirements for

the low passenger capacity rotorcraft.

ARAC Involvement

By notice in the Federal Register (60

FR 4221, January 20, 1995), the FAA

announced the establishment of the

Gross Weight and Passenger Issues for

Rotorcraft Working Group (GWWG). The

GWWG was tasked to ‘‘Review Title 14

Code of Federal Regulations part 27 and

supporting policy and guidance material

to determine the appropriate course of

action to be taken for rulemaking and/

or policy relative to the issue of

increasing the maximum weight and

passenger seat limitations for normal

category rotorcraft.’’

The GWWG includes representatives

from all parties that have expressed an

interest in this subject through submittal

of comments to the FAA or through the

public meeting process. The GWWG

includes representatives from Aerospace

Industries Association of America

(AIA), Association Europeene des

Constructeurs de Material Aerospatial

(AECMA), the European JAA, Transport

Canada and the FAA Rotorcraft

Directorate. Additionally,

representatives from the small rotorcraft

manufacturers were consulted for their

views by the GWWG. This broad

participation is consistent with FAA

policy to involve all known interested

parties as early as practicable in the

rulemaking process. The GWWG first

met in February 1995 and has

subsequently met for a total of six

meetings.

Statement of the Issues

Members of the GWWG agreed that

there is a valid need to increase the

normal category weight limitation and

that nine passengers is appropriate for

the normal category rotorcraft passenger

seat limitation. A nine-passenger seat

limitation is consistent with the

passenger seat limitation of normal

category airplanes certificated under

part 23. The decision to include a ninepassenger seat limitation to § 27.1 is not

a new idea. Based on the results of FAA

Public Meetings held in 1979 and 1980,

NPRM 80–25 (45 FR 245, December 18,

1980) included a proposal to limit part

27 rotorcraft to nine passengers. This

passenger seat limitation was not

adopted in the final rule because there

were no projections for rotorcraft with a

maximum weight of 6,000 pounds or

less to have more than nine passenger

seats.

Considerable discussions during

initial GWWG meetings concerned

whether additional regulatory

requirements should be promulgated to

accommodate the increased maximum

weight limitations. Although part 27 has

always permitted rotorcraft to be

certificated to carry up to nine

passengers, the current weight

limitation has limited practical designs

to seven passengers. No normal category

rotorcraft to date has been certified and

manufactured to carry more than seven

passengers. The proposed increase in

maximum weight will allow the

practical design and production of

helicopters that will carry nine

passengers. Several sections of part 27

were reviewed to evaluate the possible

need for additional regulatory

requirements to support this potential

increase of two passengers.

The GWWG considered the possible

need for additional regulatory

requirements if the proposed change to

part 27:

1. Related to safety for addition of

passengers beyond 7;

2. Related to safety for increased

weight; or

3. Resulted in little or no increase in

cost or weight.

Based on these criteria, necessary

changes were identified.

Industry estimates of the maximum

weight necessary to accommodate nine

passengers were in the range of 8,000 to

8,500 pounds. Nevertheless, the GWWG

agreed to the new limit as 7,000 pounds

based on several considerations.

Increasing the limit to 7,000 pounds

would address the problem of some

current normal category rotorcraft

remaining within the part 27 weight

limitation while complying with the

recent increases in part 27 regulatory

requirements. In addition, the GWWG

agreed that, with possible incorporation

of technological advances, a 7,000-

pound limit may be adequate to

accommodate a nine-passenger capacity

in the future.

The proposed additional regulatory

requirements included here were

prompted by this potential increase in

passenger capacity. Therefore, the

GWWG recommended a limit of seven

passengers for previously certificated

rotorcraft (regardless of maximum

weight) unless the certification basis is

revised and the rotorcraft complies with

part 27 at the amendment level of this

proposal. The GWWG also agreed that

an applicant may apply for an amended

or supplemental type certificate to

increase maximum weight above 6,000

pounds without complying with this

proposed amendment (other than

§§ 27.1 and 27.2) provided that the
34612 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

original seating capacity of the rotorcraft

is not increased above that certificated

on [insert date 30 days after date of

publication of the final rule in the

Federal Register].

The GWWG presented its

recommendation to ARAC. The ARAC

subsequently recommended that the

FAA revise the normal category

rotorcraft airworthiness standards. The

Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA)

proposes to harmonize the Joint

Aviation Requirements (JAR)

concurrently with this NPRM.

FAA Evaluation of ARAC

Recommendation

The FAA has reviewed the ARAC

recommendation and proposes that the

maximum weight limitation be

increased to 7,000 pounds and that a

passenger seat limitation of nine be

added to § 27.1

Section-by-Section Discussion of the

Proposals

This NPRM contains proposals to

amend part 27. The FAA proposes the

following changes to accommodate an

increase in the current maximum weight

and passenger carrying capability. The

proposal also includes additional safety

standards identified as imposing little or

no increase in cost or weight.

Section 27.1 Applicability

This proposal would revise § 27.1(a)

to increase the current maximum weight

from 6,000 to 7,000 pounds and to add

a nine-passenger seat limitation for

normal category rotorcraft. The increase

in maximum weight is intended to

compensate for increased weight

resulting from additional regulatory

requirements, particularly recent

requirements intended to improve

occupant survivability in the event of a

crash.

Section 27.2 Special Retroactive

Requirements

This proposal would add a new

paragraph (b) to § 27.2 requiring

compliance with the part 27

amendments, up to and including this

amendment, at the time of application

for any normal category rotorcraft for

which certification for more than seven

passengers is sought. This would only

apply to changes in type design for

already type certificated rotorcraft, since

newly type certificated rotorcraft would

be required to meet the current part 27

requirements. Additionally, the

proposal would allow a previously

certificated rotorcraft to exceed the

6,000-pound maximum weight limit

provided that no increase in passenger

capacity is sought beyond that for which

the rotorcraft was certificated as of

(insert date 30 days after date of

publication of the final rule in the

Federal Register). Compliance with all

the requirements of the existing

certification basis, plus any other

amendments applicable to the change in

type design, would have to be

demonstrated at the increased

maximum weight.

Section 27.610 Lightning and Static

Electricity Protection

This proposal would add to § 27.610

the requirement to provide electrical

bonding of all metallic components of

the rotorcraft. Bonding is necessary to

provide an electrical return path for

grounded electrical systems, to

minimize the accumulation of static

charge, to minimize the risk of electric

shock to occupants as well as service

and maintenance personnel, and to

minimize interference with the

operation of electrical and avionic

systems caused by lightning and the

discharge of static electricity.

Section 27.805 Flight Crew Emergency

Exits

This proposal would add a new

§ 27.805 requirement for flight crew

emergency exits, similar to § 29.805, to

facilitate rapid evacuation of the flight

crew after an emergency ground or

water landing.

Section 27.807 Passenger Emergency

Exits

Section 27.807 would be revised to

clarify the provisions on emergency

exits to ensure that each passenger has

ready access to an emergency exit on

each side of the fuselage. The proposal

also clarifies that normal-use doors may

serve as emergency exits but must meet

the requirements for emergency exits.

This is not stated in the current rule.

The proposal adds requirements that

emergency exits must open from both

inside and outside the rotorcraft and

that opening the exit must not require

exceptional effort.

Section 27.853 Compartment Interiors

This proposal enhances the

requirements of § 27.853 for fire

protection of compartment interiors by

replacing the current provision that

allows limited use of materials that are

only flash resistant with a requirement

that all materials be at least flameresistant. This change is necessary to

ensure safety in the larger passenger

cabins and is consistent with the

existing requirements for normal

category airplanes.

Section 27.1027 Transmissions and

Gearboxes: General

This proposal would add to § 27.1027

the requirement that the lubrication

system for components of the rotor drive

system (that require continuous

lubrication) must be sufficiently

independent of the engine lubrication

system to ensure adequate lubrication

during autorotation. This requirement

already exists in § 29.1027(a)(2). The

lubrication systems of the engines and

of the rotor drive system are usually

designed to be independent, but this

independence is not specifically

required by current regulations. This

proposal would require sufficient

independence to ensure adequate

lubrication during autorotation.

Section 27.1185 Flammable Fluids

This proposal would add to § 27.1185

the requirement that absorbent materials

be covered or treated to prevent

absorption of hazardous quantities of

flammable fluids when such materials

are installed close to flammable fluid

system components that might leak.

This requirement is necessary to

minimize fire hazards in rotorcraft that

may have absorbent material for

insulation of the passenger cabin, some

of which will be adjacent to fuel or

hydraulic fluid lines, and already exists

in § 29.1185(d).

Section 27.1187 Ventilation and

Drainage

This proposal would add to § 27.1187

a requirement for drainage of

powerplant installation compartments.

Section 27.1187 currently requires these

compartments to be ventilated, but there

is no requirement for them to be

provided with drains as exists in

§ 29.1187(a)(1) and (2). Drainage of

powerplant compartments is necessary

to minimize fire hazards by ensuring

that leakage of flammable fluids does

not result in hazardous accumulations

of those fluids near potential ignition

sources.

Sections 27.1305 Powerplant

Instruments and 27.1337 Powerplant

Instruments

This proposal adds to §§ 27.1305 and

27.1337 a requirement that chip

detectors fitted in the rotor drive system

also provide an indication to the flight

crew when magnetic particles are

detected. The present rule requires a

chip detector to be fitted in the rotor

drive system but does not require an inflight indication of magnetic particle

detection to the flight crew. This

proposal is necessary to provide early

indications of drive system deterioration

allowing appropriate flight crew
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 34613

responses; this requirement exists in

part 29. The proposal also adds a

requirement that a means be provided to

the flight crew to check the function of

each chip detector electrical circuit so

that proper function of the system can

be easily determined.

Paperwork Reduction Act

There are no requirements for

information collection associated with

this proposed rule that would require

approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Proposed changes to Federal

regulations must undergo several

economic analyses. First, Executive

Order 12866 directs that each Federal

Agency shall propose or adopt a

regulation only upon a reasoned

determination that the benefits of the

intended regulation justify its costs.

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act

of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the

economic impact of regulatory changes

on small entities. Third, the Office of

Management and Budget directs

agencies to assess the effects of

regulatory changes on international

trade. In conducting these analyses, the

FAA has determined that this proposed

rule: (1) would generate benefits that

justify its costs and is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as defined in the

Executive Order 12866, (2) is not

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s

Regulatory Policies and Procedures, (3)

would not have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities,

and (4) would lessen restraints on

international trade. These analyses,

available in the docket, are summarized

below:

This proposed rule would impose no

or negligible compliance costs on

rotorcraft manufacturers or users

because the proposed changes would

codify current industry practices. In

addition, it would eliminate an

applicant’s need to apply for an

exemption to the maximum weight

requirement for a future part 27 type

certificate and thereby save between

$10,000 and $18,000 in paperwork costs

for each eliminated exemption

application.

Safety benefits would arise as

manufacturers develop new, heavier

part 27 rotorcraft (that would be based

on the most recent part 27 standards) to

replace some older part 27 rotorcraft

certificated to earlier standards. For

example, these safety benefits would

accrue to some Emergency Medical

Service (EMS) operators. The increased

weight would allow some EMS’s to

increase their fuel loads and effective

ranges to carry all of the necessary

medical equipment and passengers. The

EMS’s must now limit fuel loads and

their effective ranges to remain under

the current 6,000-pound maximum

weight.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of

regulatory issuance that agencies shall

endeavor, consistent with the objective

of the rule and of applicable statutes, to

fit regulatory and informational

requirements to the sale of the business,

organizations, and governmental

jurisdictions subject to regulation.’’ To

achieve that principle, the RFA requires

agencies to solicit and consider flexible

regulatory proposals and to explain the

rationale for their actions. The RFA

covers a wide-range of small entities,

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small

governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to

determine whether a proposed or final

rule will have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. If the determination is that it

will, the Agency must prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis as

described in the RFA.

However, if an agency determines that

a proposed or final rule is not expected

to have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities, section 605(b) of the RFA

provides that the head of the agency

may so certify and a regulatory

flexibility analysis is not required. The

certification must include a statement

providing the factual basis for this

determination, and the reasoning should

be clear.

The FAA conducted the required

review of this proposal and determined

that it would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The proposed

rule is expected to produce annualized

incremental cost savings of $10,000 to

$18,000 per applicant. While this would

be beneficial to rotorcraft

manufacturers, it would be unlikely to

affect either the competitiveness or

solvency of small businesses.

Accordingly, pursuant to the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the

Federal Aviation Administration

certifies that this rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact

The proposed rule would not

constitute a barrier to international

trade, including the export of U.S.

rotorcraft into the United States.

Instead, the changes would maintain

harmonized certification procedures of

the FAA with those of the JAA and

thereby have no appreciable effect on

trade.

Federalism Implications

The proposed regulations herein

would not have substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order

12866, October 4, 1993, it is determined

that this proposal would not have

sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as

Pub. L. 104–4 on March 22, 1995,

requires each Federal agency, to the

extent permitted by law, to prepare a

written assessment of the effects of any

Federal mandate in a proposed or final

agency rule that may result in the

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any

one year. Section 204(a) of the Act, 2

U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal

agency to develop an effective process

to permit timely input by elected

officers (or their designees) of State,

local, and tribal governments on a

proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental

mandate.’’ A ‘‘significant

intergovernmental mandate’’ under the

Act is any provision in a Federal agency

regulation that would impose an

enforceable duty upon State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, of

$100 million (adjusted annually for

inflation) in any one year. Section 203

of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which

supplements section 204(a), provides

that before establishing any regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, the

agency shall have developed a plan that,

among other things, provides for notice

to potentially affected small

governments, if any, and for a

meaningful and timely opportunity to

provide input in the development of

regulatory proposals.

This rule does not contain a Federal

intergovernmental or private sector

mandate that exceeds $100 million a

year.
34614 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 27

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Rotorcraft, Safety.

The Proposed Amendments

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 27 as

follows:

PART 27—AIRWORTHINESS

STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY

ROTORCRAFT

1. The authority citation for part 27

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–

44702, 44704.

2. Section 27.1(a) is revised to read as

follows:

§ 27.1 Applicability.

(a) This part prescribes airworthiness

standards for the issue of type

certificates, and changes to those

certificates, for normal category

rotorcraft with maximum weights of

7,000 pounds or less and nine or less

passenger seats.

* * * * *

3. Section 27.2 is amended by

redesignating the introductory text and

paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) introductory

text, (d)(1), and (d)(2) as paragraphs (a)

introductory text, (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3),

(a)(4) introductory text, and (a)(4)(i) and

(a)(4)(ii), respectively.

§ 27.2 Special retroactive requirements.

* * * * *

(b) For rotorcraft with a certification

basis established prior to (insert date 30

days after date of publication of the final

rule in the Federal Register)—

(1) The maximum passenger seat

capacity may be increased to eight or

nine provided the applicant shows

compliance with all the airworthiness

requirements of this part in effect (insert

date 30 days after date of publication of

the final rule in the Federal Register).

(2) The maximum weight may be

increased to greater than 6,000 pounds

provided—

(i) The number of passenger seats is

not increased above the maximum

number previously certificated on

[insert date 30 days after date of

publication of the final rule in the

Federal Register], or

(ii) The applicant shows compliance

with all of the airworthiness

requirements of this part in effect on

[insert date 30 days after date of

publication of the final rule in the

Federal Register].

4. Section 27.610 is amended by

revising the section heading and by

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 27.610 Lightning and static electricity

protection.

* * * * *

(d) The electrical bonding and

protection against lightning and static

electricity must—

(1) Minimize the accumulation of

electrostatic charge;

(2) Minimize the risk of electric shock

to crew, passengers, and service and

maintenance personnel using normal

precautions;

(3) Provide an electrical return path,

under both normal and fault conditions,

on rotorcraft having grounded electrical

systems; and

(4) Reduce to an acceptable level the

effects of lightning and static electricity

on the functioning of essential electrical

and electronic equipment.

5. Section 27.805 is added to read as

follows:

§ 27.805 Flight crew emergency exits.

(a) For rotorcraft with passenger

emergency exits that are not convenient

to the flight crew, there must be flight

crew emergency exits, on both sides of

the rotorcraft or as a top hatch, in the

flight crew area.

(b) Each flight crew emergency exit

must be of sufficient size and must be

located so as to allow rapid evacuation

of the flight crew. This must be shown

by test.

(c) Each flight crew emergency exit

must not be obstructed by water or

flotation devices after an emergency

landing on water. This must be shown

by test, demonstration, or analysis.

6. Section 27.807 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 27.807 Emergency exits.

(a) Number and location.

(1) There must be at least one

emergency exit on each side of the cabin

readily accessible to each passenger.

One of these exits must be usable in any

probable attitude that may result from a

crash;

(2) Doors intended for normal use

may also serve as emergency exits,

provided that they meet the

requirements of this section; and

(3) If emergency flotation devices are

installed, there must be an emergency

exit accessible to each passenger on

each side of the cabin that is shown by

test, demonstration, or analysis to:

(i) Be above the waterline; and

(ii) Open without interference from

flotation devices, whether stowed or

deployed.

(b) Type and operation. Each

emergency exit prescribed by paragraph

(a) of this section must—

(1) Consist of a movable window or

panel, or additional external door,

providing an unobstructed opening that

will admit a 19- by 26-inch ellipse;

(2) Have simple and obvious methods

of opening, from the inside and from the

outside, which do not require

exceptional effort;

(3) Be arranged and marked so as to

be readily located and opened even in

darkness; and

(4) Be reasonably protected from

jamming by fuselage deformation.

(c) Tests. The proper functioning of

each emergency exit must be shown by

test.

(d) Ditching emergency exits for

passengers. If certification with ditching

provisions is requested, the markings

required by paragraph (b)(3) of this

section must be designed to remain

visible if the rotorcraft is capsized and

the cabin is submerged.

§ 27.853 [Amended]

7. Section 27.853 is amended in

paragraph (a) by removing the word

‘‘flash’’ and inserting the word ‘‘flame’’

in its place and by removing and

reserving paragraph (b).

8. Section 27.1027 is amended by

redesignating paragraphs (a) through (d)

as paragraphs (b) through (e); in

redesignated paragraph (c)(2), by

removing ‘‘(b)(3)’’ and adding ‘‘(c)(3)’’ in

its place; in redesignated paragraph (d),

by removing ‘‘(b)’’ each place it appears

and adding ‘‘(c)’’; and by adding a new

paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 27.1027 Transmissions and gearboxes:

General.

(a) The lubrication system for

components of the rotor drive system

that require continuous lubrication must

be sufficiently independent of the

lubrication systems of the engine(s) to

ensure lubrication during autorotation.

* * * * *

9. In § 27.1185, a new paragraph (d)

is added to read as follows:

§ 27.1185 Flammable fluids.

* * * * *

(d) Absorbent materials close to

flammable fluid system components

that might leak must be covered or

treated to prevent the absorption of

hazardous quantities of fluids.

10. Section 27.1187 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 27.1187 Ventilation and drainage.

Each compartment containing any

part of the powerplant installation must

have provision for ventilation and

drainage of flammable fluids. The

drainage means must be—

(a) Effective under conditions

expected to prevail when drainage is

needed, and
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 122 /Thursday, June 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules 34615

(b) Arranged so that no discharged

fluid will cause an additional fire

hazard.

11. In § 27.1305, paragraph (v) is

added to read as follows:

§ 27.1305 Powerplant instruments.

* * * * *

(v) Warning or caution devices to

signal to the flight crew when

ferromagnetic particles are detected by

the chip detector required by

§ 27.1337(e).

12. Section 27.1337(e) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 27.1337 Powerplant instruments.

* * * * *

(e) Rotor drive system transmissions

and gearboxes utilizing ferromagnetic

materials must be equipped with chip

detectors designed to indicate the

presence of ferromagnetic particles

resulting from damage or excessive

wear. Chip detectors must—

(1) Be designed to provide a signal to

the device required by § 27.1305(v); and

be provided with a means to allow

crewmembers to check, in flight, the

function of each detector electrical

circuit and signal.

(2) [Reserved]

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 9, 1998.

Thomas E. McSweeny,

Director, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–15961 Filed 6–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG–116608–97]

RIN 1545–AV61

EIC Eligibility Requirements

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

by cross-reference to temporary

regulations and notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: In the Rules and Regulations

section of this issue of the Federal

Register, the IRS is issuing temporary

regulations pertaining to the eligibility

requirements for certain taxpayers

denied the earned income credit (EIC) as

a result of the deficiency procedures.

The text of those temporary regulations

also serves as the text of these proposed

regulations. This document also

provides notice of a public hearing on

these proposed regulations.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by September 23, 1998.

Requests to speak (with outlines of oral

comments) at a public hearing

scheduled for Wednesday, October 21,

1998, must be received by September

30, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to:

CC:DOM:CORP:R (REG–116608–97),

room 5228, Internal Revenue Service,

POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station,

Washington, DC 20044. Submissions

may be hand delivered between the

hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to:

CC:DOM:CORP:R (REG–116608–97),

Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC. Alternatively,

taxpayers may submit comments

electronically via the Internet by

selecting the ‘‘Tax Regs’’ option on the

IRS Home Page, or by submitting

comments directly to the IRS Internet

site at http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/

taxlregs/comments.html. The public

hearing will be held in room 2615,

Internal Revenue Building, 1111

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Concerning the regulations, Karin

Loverud, 202–622–6060; concerning

submissions or the hearing, LaNita

VanDyke, 202–622–7190 (not toll-free

numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collection of information

contained in this notice of proposed

rulemaking has been submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget for

review in accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments on the

collection of information should be sent

to the Office of Management and

Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the

Department of the Treasury, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Washington, DC 20503, with copies to

the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS

Reports Clearance Officer, T:FP,

Washington, DC 20224. Comments on

the collection of information should be

received by August 24, 1998. Comments

are specifically requested concerning:

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Internal Revenue Service, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

The accuracy of the estimated burden

associated with the proposed collection

of information (see below);

How the quality, utility, and clarity of

the information to be collected may be

enhanced;

How the burden of complying with

the proposed collection of information

may be minimized, including through

the application of automated collection

techniques or other forms of information

technology; and

Estimates of capital or start-up costs

and costs of operation, maintenance,

and purchase of services to provide

information.

The collection of information in this

proposed regulation is in § 1.32–3. This

information is required to conform with

the statute and to permit the taxpayer to

claim the EIC. This information will be

used by the IRS to determine whether

the taxpayer is entitled to claim the EIC.

The collection of information is

mandatory. The likely respondents are

individuals.

The burden is reflected in the burden

of Form 8862.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a valid control

number assigned by the Office of

Management and Budget.

Books or records relating to a

collection of information must be

retained as long as their contents may

become material in the administration

of any internal revenue law. Generally,

tax returns and tax return information

are confidential, as required by 26

U.S.C. 6103.

Background

The temporary regulations published

in the Rules and Regulations section of

this issue of the Federal Register add

§ 1.32–3T to the Income Tax

Regulations.

The text of those temporary

regulations also serves as the text of

these proposed regulations. The

preamble to the temporary regulations

explains the temporary regulations.

Special Analyses

It has been determined that this notice

of proposed rulemaking is not a

significant regulatory action as defined

in EO 12866. Therefore, a regulatory

assessment is not required. It also has

been determined that section 553(b) of

the Administrative Procedure Act (5

U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these

regulations.

It is hereby certified that these

regulations will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This

certification is based upon the fact that

the underlying statute applies only to

individuals. Therefore, a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

chapter 6) is not required.