[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34610-34615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15961]


      
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

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.

========================================================================


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

[[Page 34610]]


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

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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a1988ccfd1d3cc8cabc2ccd5d2e1c7c0c08fc5ced58fc6ced7">9-nprm-
<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="294a445d5a694f4848074d465d074e465f">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 <a href="http://www.faa.gov/
avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm">http://www.faa.gov/
avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm</a> or the Federal Register's webpage at <a href="http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs/aces/aces140.html">http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs/aces/aces140.html</a> 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 twin-engines. 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

[[Page 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 nine-passenger seat limitation 
to Sec. 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 Secs. 27.1 and 27.2) provided that the

[[Page 34612]]

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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 27.805 requirement for flight 
crew emergency exits, similar to Sec. 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 Sec. 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 flame-resistant. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 29.1185(d).

Section 27.1187  Ventilation and Drainage

    This proposal would add to Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Secs. 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 in-flight 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

[[Page 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-for-profit 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.

[[Page 34614]]

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:


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 27.1185, a new paragraph (d) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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

[[Page 34615]]

    (b) Arranged so that no discharged fluid will cause an additional 
fire hazard.
    11. In Sec. 27.1305, paragraph (v) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 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 
Sec. 27.1337(e).
    12. Section 27.1337(e) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 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 
Sec. 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>