Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 50583 

tolerance must be considered when 

showing compliance with § 25.571. 

4. The folding wingtips and their 

operating mechanism must be designed 

for 65 knot, horizontal, ground-gust 

conditions in any direction as specified 

in § 25.415(a). Relevant design 

conditions must be defined using 

combinations of steady wind and taxi 

speeds determined by rational analysis 

utilizing airport wind data. The folding 

wingtip is not a control surface as 

specified in § 25.415(b)(c). Therefore, in 

lieu of the equation provided in 

§ 25.415(b), the hinge moment may be 

calculated from rational wind-tunnel 

data. The 1.25 factor specified in 

§ 25.415(d) need not be applied to the 

portion of the system that is isolated in 

flight and is not critical for safe flight 

and landing. The folding-wingtip 

system must be designed for the 

conditions specified in § 25.415(e), (f), 

and (g). Runway roughness, as specified 

in § 25.491, must be evaluated 

separately up to the maximum relevant 

airplane ground speeds. All of the above 

conditions must be applied to the 

folding wingtips in the extended (flightdeployed), folded, and transient 

positions. 

5. The airplane must demonstrate 

acceptable handling qualities during 

rollout in a crosswind environment, as 

wingtips transition from the flightdeployed to folded position, as well as 

during the unlikely event of asymmetric 

wingtip folding. 

6. The wingtip-fold operating 

mechanism must have stops that 

positively limit the range of motion of 

the wingtips. Each stop must be 

designed to the requirements of 

§ 25.675. 

7. The wingtip hinge structure must 

be designed for inertia loads acting 

parallel to the hinge line. In the absence 

of more rational data, the inertia loads 

may be assumed to be equal to KW as 

referenced in § 25.393. Hinge design 

must meet the requirements of § 25.657. 

8. In lieu of § 25.1385(b): The forward 

position lights must be installed such 

that they consist of a red and a green 

light spaced laterally as far apart as 

practicable, and installed forward on the 

airplane, so that, with the airplane in 

the normal flying position and with the 

wingtips in the folded position for 

ground operations, the red light is on 

the left side and the green light is on the 

right side at approximately the level of 

the wingtips in the takeoff 

configuration. Each light must be 

approved and must meet the 

requirements of § 25.1385(a) and (d). 

The lights must not impair the vision of 

the flightcrew when the wingtips are in 

the folded and transient positions. 

9. The applicant must include design 

features that ensure the wingtips are 

properly secured during ground 

operations, to protect ground personnel 

from bodily injury as well as to prevent 

damage to the airframe, ground 

structure, and ground support 

equipment. 

10. The wingtips must have means to 

safeguard against unlocking from the 

extended, flight-deployed position in 

flight, as a result of failures, including 

the failure of any single structural 

element. All sources of airplane power 

that could initiate unlocking of the 

wingtips must be automatically isolated 

from the wingtip-fold operating system 

(including the latching and locking 

system) prior to flight, and it must not 

be possible to restore power to the 

system during flight. The wingtip 

latching and locking mechanisms must 

be designed so that, under all airplane 

flight-load conditions, no force or torque 

can unlatch or unlock the mechanisms. 

The latching system must include a 

means to secure the latches in the 

latched position, independent of the 

locking system. It must not be possible 

to position the lock in the locked 

position if the latches and the latching 

mechanisms are not in the latched 

position, and it must not be possible to 

unlatch the latches with the locks in the 

locked position. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

25, 2017. 

Victor Wicklund, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23698 Filed 10–31–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29 

[Docket No.: FAA–2017–0990] 

RIN 2120–AK80 

Normal and Transport Category 

Rotorcraft Certification 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend 

the certification standards of normal 

and transport category helicopters. The 

proposed changes are necessary to 

address modern designs currently used 

in the rotorcraft industry and would 

reduce the burden on applicants for 

certification of new rotorcraft designs. 

The proposed changes would reduce or 

eliminate the need for certain special 

conditions currently required to obtain 

certification of modern rotorcraft. The 

proposed changes would also 

incorporate the requirements of 

equivalent level of safety findings that 

the FAA has imposed as conditions for 

approving certain design features. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

January 30, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2017–0990 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 

public to better inform its rulemaking 

process. DOT posts these comments, 

without edit, including any personal 

information the commenter provides, to 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

www.dot.gov/privacy. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to the Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions concerning this action, 

contact Sandra Shelley, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, Safety Management Group, 

FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort 

Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222– 

5110; email sandra.shelley@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
50584 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

1http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_

Library/. 

2http://www.ntsb.gov/. 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Sections 

44701 and 44704. Under section 44701, 

the FAA is charged with prescribing 

regulations promoting safe flight of civil 

aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 

minimum standards required in the 

interest of safety for the design and 

performance of aircraft. Under section 

44704, the Administrator issues type 

certificates for aircraft, aircraft engines, 

propellers, and specified appliances 

when the Administrator finds the 

product is properly designed and 

manufactured, performs properly, and 

meets the regulations and minimum 

standards prescribed under section 

44701(a). This rulemaking is within the 

scope of these authorities because it 

would promote safety by updating the 

existing minimum prescribed standards 

used during the type certification 

process. 

I. Overview of Proposed Rule 

The FAA proposes to revise 

regulations in title 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) part 27 

(Airworthiness Standards: Normal 

Category Rotorcraft) and part 29 

(Airworthiness Standards: Transport 

Category Rotorcraft) related to the 

certification of rotorcraft. The proposed 

changes are necessary due to the 

extensive application of advancing 

technologies to rotorcraft. Existing 

airworthiness standards are inadequate 

because they do not address increasing 

design complexity. To address these 

advances, the FAA currently issues 

reoccurring special conditions, 

equivalent level of safety findings 

(ELOS), and means of compliance 

(MOC) issue papers. This proposed rule 

would address these problem areas by 

updating those standards that cause 

unnecessary burdens in cost and time to 

both the FAA and the rotorcraft 

industry. Compliance with these 

proposed regulatory changes would 

continue to be shown by the same 

testing, analysis, and inspections as in 

the current certification process and 

there would be a reduced burden 

through clarification of the safety 

requirements for the installed systems. 

II. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

The FAA is proposing to update parts 

27 and 29 because the regulations were 

originally published in 1964 and 

revisions to the airworthiness standards 

have not kept pace with advances in 

technology for rotorcraft. The FAA 

addresses the changes to technology by 

issuing reoccurring special conditions, 

ELOS findings, and MOC issue papers. 

Special conditions are prescribed under 

14 CFR 21.16 when the FAA finds the 

applicable airworthiness standards do 

not contain adequate or appropriate 

safety standards because of a novel or 

unusual design feature. The FAA issues 

ELOS findings under § 21.21(b)(1) 

where a design does not literally comply 

with the airworthiness standards, but 

compensating factors exist that provide 

an equivalent level of safety. MOC issue 

papers document compliance 

methodologies that fall outside existing 

guidance and policies. These three 

processes are necessary to address new 

design features for which airworthiness 

standards are lacking, literal compliance 

with a rule cannot be achieved, or 

alternative methods of compliance are 

proposed. In some cases, advancements 

in technology have rendered the 

regulations obsolete. 

These special conditions, ELOS 

findings, and MOC issue papers impact 

FAA resources and applicants’ 

schedules for obtaining FAA approval of 

their products. By updating the affected 

standards, many special conditions, 

ELOS findings, and MOC issue papers 

would be unnecessary, thus reducing 

the burden on both the FAA and 

industry. We also propose to update a 

few of these rules to correct 

typographical errors. 

Sections 27.1329 and 29.1329 do not 

adequately address the latest technology 

in flight control automation. These 

standards adequately addressed the 

functionality of autopilots for many 

years until recently with the 

development of more sophisticated 

functions, especially in normal category 

helicopters. The rotorcraft autopilot 

systems of previous years controlled 

only altitude, attitude, and heading. The 

more advanced autopilot systems also 

control airspeed, vertical speed, and 

hover. The current rule is inconsistent 

with FAA-accepted industry standards 

and practices. The current rule does not 

adequately cover the growing changes in 

the marketplace toward increased 

automation in the primary flight 

controls. 

Sections 27.1335 and 29.1335 were 

originally written to address a particular 

flight control concept called ‘‘flight 

director systems;’’ however, the term 

itself has long been considered a 

standard part of a modern autopilot 

covered under §§ 27.1329 and 29.1329. 

In addition, the text we propose to 

remove from §§ 27.1335 and 29.1335 

has been added to the proposed 

§§ 27.1329 and 29.1329 rules. The 

impact to industry would be minimal 

since the current material associated 

with these rules in Advisory Circular 

(AC) 27–1B, Certification of Normal 

Category Rotorcraft, and AC 29–2C, 

Certification of Transport Category 

Rotorcraft,1 already recognizes industry 

standards and practices. 

In appendix B to parts 27 and 29, the 

reference to Amendment 29–14 in 

section VIII needs to be removed. By 

citing the amendment within the rule, 

appendix B requires updating every 

time a relevant part 27 or part 29 rule 

is changed. 

B. National Transportation Safety Board 

Recommendations 

As a result of incidents involving 

lithium-ion batteries installed on 

aircraft, the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) issued Safety 

Recommendations A–14–032 through 

036 to the FAA on May 22, 2014.2 The 

NTSB recommended the FAA develop 

abuse tests to simulate failures observed 

in the incidents investigated and to 

address findings in recent research (A– 

14–032), perform these tests on new 

aircraft for certain installations (A–14– 

033), develop guidance on acceptable 

methods to induce thermal runaway 

that reliably simulates battery failures 

(A–14–034), review methods of 

compliance used to certificate in-service 

lithium-ion battery aircraft installations 

to ensure that they adequately protect 

against adverse effects of a cell thermal 

runaway (A–14–035), and develop 

policy to establish a panel of technical 

experts to advise on compliance and 

best practices for safely installing new 

technology (A–14–036). This proposed 

rule would incorporate these NTSB 

recommendations as they relate to 

rotorcraft into §§ 27.1353 and 29.1353. 

III. Discussion of the Proposal 

A. AC 27–1B and AC 29–2C Guidance 

AC 27–1B and AC 29–2C provide 

information on methods of compliance 

with 14 CFR parts 27 and 29, which 

contain the airworthiness standards for 

normal and transport category rotorcraft. 

These ACs include methods of 

compliance in the areas of basic design, 

ground tests, and flight tests. With these 

proposed rules, the FAA is also 

proposing related changes to these ACs. 

B. Powerplant Instruments (§§ 27.1305 

and 29.1305) 

Sections 27.1305 and 29.1305 

prescribe the specific required 

powerplant instruments for rotorcraft. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 50585 

3 In 14 CFR 1.1, Category A, with respect to 

transport category rotorcraft, means multiengine 

rotorcraft designed with engine and system 

isolation features specified in Part 29 and utilizing 

scheduled takeoff and landing operations under a 

critical engine failure concept which assures 

adequate designated surface area and adequate 

performance capability for continued safe flight in 

the event of engine failure. 

The current rules specify separate 

indicators for many of these 

instruments, including engine manifold 

pressure and engine revolutions per 

minute (r.p.m.) for reciprocating 

engines, or gas producer speed, gas 

temperature, and torque for turbine 

engines. 

Traditionally, pilots determine the 

powerplant performance conditions by 

monitoring individual gauges: Gas 

temperature, gas producer speed, and 

torque. Sections 27.1305 and 29.1305 

establish the required powerplant 

instruments, and §§ 27.1321 and 

29.1321 require that these instruments 

be easily visible to the pilot. These 

instruments measure the performance 

output of the engines and they 

collectively allow the pilot to 

continuously monitor the condition and 

health of the engines. 

Many rotorcraft manufacturers have 

started to incorporate a synthesized 

power indicator (SPI) that provides a 

single indicator of engine performance. 

This single value displayed to the pilot 

is generally presented as a percentage of 

the nearest engine limit. The 

continuously displayed SPI presents the 

calculated value to the flight crew on 

the primary flight displays along with a 

caption indicating the nearest engine 

limiting parameter that is being used for 

the SPI displayed calculation. 

Acceptable designs allow the pilot to 

monitor engine performance and trends. 

Technologies such as an SPI, which 

combine multiple indicators into one, 

cannot meet the requirements of the 

current rules. By allowing means other 

than dedicated indicators, the proposed 

changes would permit designs 

incorporating an SPI or similar 

concepts. The FAA proposes to revise 

§§ 27.1305(e), (k), (n), and (o) and 

29.1305(a)(5), (11), and (12) to allow 

other means of powerplant indication 

for these instruments. Section 

27.1305(k) would continue to require a 

tachometer to indicate main rotor speed, 

but would also require a separate means 

to indicate the r.p.m. of each engine. 

The FAA also proposes to modify 

§ 27.1305(o) by replacing ‘‘turboshaft’’ 

with ‘‘turbine’’ to be consistent with 

similar wording used throughout parts 

27 and 29. 

For part 29, the FAA proposes to add 

§ 29.1305(b)(4) to permit manipulating 

the powerplant instruments to simulate 

one engine inoperative (OEI) conditions 

without damaging the engines. Section 

29.1305 requires unbiased engine 

instrument indications to remain 

available to assure operation within safe 

limits. Several helicopter designs 

include, for Category A 3 training 

purposes (OEI Training Mode), a feature 

to represent a simulated engine failure 

by reducing power of all engines 

symmetrically. This simulated OEI 

condition is shown on the engine 

instruments by biasing the engine 

power, gas temperature, and gas 

producer and free power turbine 

tachometers on the primary flight 

display. To avoid confusion, the 

proposed § 29.1305(b)(4) would require 

additional annunciations to differentiate 

the simulated OEI condition from that of 

an actual engine failure. 

The proposed changes to § 29.1305 

would permit designs incorporating an 

OEI Training Mode. The FAA is not 

proposing changes to § 27.1305 because 

14 CFR part 27 Category A rotorcraft are 

approved under appendix C to part 27, 

which requires compliance with 

§ 29.1305. 

C. Rotorcraft Equipment, Systems, and 

Installations (§§ 27.1309, 29.1309, and 

Appendix C to Part 27) 

Sections 27.1309 and 29.1309 apply 

generally to all systems on the aircraft 

that do not otherwise have specific 

language to analyze the safety aspects of 

a system. The proposed changes to 

§ 27.1309 would address advances in 

technology and increases in 

performance of normal category 

rotorcraft that were not envisioned 

when this rule was originally 

promulgated. Manufacturers installed 

complex and highly integrated systems 

in part 27 rotorcraft certificated for 

instrument flight rules (IFR) under 

appendix B and Category A operations 

under appendix C. At that time, the 

FAA did not envision complex and 

highly integrated systems would be 

installed in non-IFR and non-Category A 

normal category rotorcraft because 

industry was not employing this 

advanced technology or the technology 

did not exist. The analysis methods 

used to identify and determine the 

effects of system failures required in 

§ 27.1309 are not adequate for today’s 

complex and highly integrated systems. 

The use of this advanced technology 

resulted in an exponential increase in 

the number of ways rotorcraft systems 

can fail and a decrease in the 

discernibility of such failures. To ensure 

the reliability of the rotorcraft system is 

not compromised when utilizing 

complex and highly integrated 

technology, the FAA is proposing a 

more structured repeatable failure 

analysis. 

The proposed change would also 

eliminate the distinction between 

single-engine and multi-engine 

rotorcraft. Section 27.1309 currently 

requires applicants to assess the effects 

of failures that may be introduced by 

installed systems and equipment, and 

distinguishes that the methods for 

assessing these failures may be different 

between single and multi-engine 

rotorcraft. This distinction was 

envisioned because multi-engine 

rotorcraft employed complex systems or 

systems with more severe failure effects. 

This distinction is now irrelevant since 

current analysis tools for technologies 

and associated failure effects do not 

consider number of engines as required 

input. 

The proposed rule would clarify the 

requirement to perform a proper failure 

analysis and also recognize that the 

severity of failures can vary. Since the 

current rule was promulgated, the 

number of failure condition categories 

has varied. Current industry standards 

and practices recognize five failure 

condition categories: Catastrophic, 

Hazardous, Major, Minor, and No-Safety 

Effect. The proposed rule recognizes the 

maximum and minimum failure effects 

without prescribing the number of 

failure effect severity categories. This 

proposed change would also 

accommodate future changes in 

industry failure analysis techniques and 

reflect current certification practices. 

Additionally, it would eliminate the 

need to issue recurring special 

conditions and remove the additional 

time and cost to industry. 

The changes proposed for §§ 27.1309 

and 29.1309 would make the sections 

consistent. These changes would 

remove the necessity to reference 

§ 29.1309 in appendix C of part 27. 

Although a specific reference to 

§ 27.1309 would not be added, appendix 

C of part 27 already requires compliance 

with all of part 27 for Category A 

certification. These proposed changes 

would not eliminate the requirement to 

reassess compliance with § 27.1309 for 

applicants who request Category A 

operations. The FAA proposes to change 

appendix C to delete the reference to 

§ 29.1309. 

The FAA proposes to update 

§ 29.1309 to be consistent with industry 

standards and practices for conducting 

failure analysis. These proposed 

changes are intended to allow flexibility 

in the types of assessments applicants 

may provide for showing compliance. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
50586 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

4 In 14 CFR 1.1, Category B, with respect to 

transport category rotorcraft, means single-engine or 

multiengine rotorcraft which do not fully meet all 

Category A standards. Category B rotorcraft have no 

guaranteed stay-up ability in the event of engine 

failure and unscheduled landing is assumed. 

Section 29.1309 currently requires 

applicants to assess the effects of 

failures resulting from installed systems 

and equipment. The current rule also 

identifies differences in the depth of 

assessing failures between Category A 

and Category B4 rotorcraft. Complex 

and highly integrated systems were 

typically installed in part 29 rotorcraft 

certificated for Category A operations. 

Like the distinction between singleengine and multi-engine rotorcraft 

discussed previously, this distinction 

was made because the FAA did not 

envision that complex and highly 

integrated systems would be installed in 

rotorcraft certificated for Category B 

operations. This distinction is now 

irrelevant since current analysis tools 

for technologies and associated failure 

effects do not differ between Category A 

and Category B. The FAA proposes to 

add an introductory paragraph and 

revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to clarify 

that all equipment, systems, and 

installations on the rotorcraft must be 

analyzed and to remove the distinction 

between Category A and B. Although 

the effects of the failures may be 

different, the method for conducting the 

failure analysis is the same regardless of 

the operations evaluated. 

The term ‘‘warning’’ in § 29.1309(c) 

and (d) has been interpreted as requiring 

a red level alert, when the intent was to 

notify the crew of all required 

annunciations. Therefore, the FAA 

proposes to modify paragraphs (c) and 

(d) by removing the terms ‘‘warning’’ 

and ‘‘probability’’ and replacing them 

with ‘‘annunciation’’ and ‘‘effect’’ 

respectively, and adding ‘‘misleading 

data’’ as a standard failure mode. 

The FAA also proposes removing the 

requirements of § 29.1309(e) and (f) 

dealing specifically with electrical 

systems as they are covered by 

§§ 29.1351, 29.1353, 29.1355, and 

29.1357. 

D. Automatic Flight Guidance and 

Control Systems (§§ 27.1329, 27.1335, 

29.1329, and 29.1335) 

The FAA proposes to standardize 

terminology and combine the 

requirements for automatic pilot and 

flight director systems into one rule. 

Sections 27.1329 and 29.1329 address 

automatic pilot systems while 

§§ 27.1335 and 29.1335 address flight 

director systems. At the time these rules 

were promulgated, the functionality of 

designs prompted a separate rule for 

each system. Since then, systems for 

automatic control of flight have evolved. 

Modern designs include both automatic 

pilot and flight director systems and are 

now referred to as automatic flight 

guidance and control systems. Having 

these systems in separate rules that use 

different terminology has resulted in 

some confusion. The proposed changes 

would remove §§ 27.1335 and 29.1335 

and incorporate the requirements into 

§§ 27.1329 and 29.1329. The FAA also 

proposes to use the term ‘‘automatic 

flight guidance and control systems’’ to 

address both automatic pilot and flight 

director systems, as well as the 

components. 

E. Instrument Systems (§ 29.1333 and 

Appendix B to Parts 27 and 29) 

Currently, § 29.1333(a) requires 

isolating the pilot instrument system 

from any other operating systems. At the 

time the rule was promulgated, these 

systems were federated, and connecting 

these systems increased the likelihood 

that a fault in one system would cause 

a fault in the pilot instrument system. 

This physical independence between 

the pilot system and other operating 

systems prevented the pilot system’s 

reliability from being compromised by 

other operating systems. With the 

adoption of microprocessor technology 

and the trend towards complex and 

highly integrated systems, the 

requirement for physical independence 

is no longer appropriate. The use of this 

technology resulted in an exponential 

increase in the number of ways 

rotorcraft systems can fail and a 

decrease in the discernibility of such 

failures. To ensure the reliability of the 

pilot system is not compromised when 

utilizing microprocessors or highly 

integrated systems, modern designs 

allow redundant systems in the 

rotorcraft to compare information. 

Rotorcraft cannot utilize current 

technology, and redundant systems 

cannot compare information, when the 

pilot instrument system is isolated. 

The FAA proposes to revise 

§ 29.1333(a) and section VIII(b)(5)(i) of 

appendix B to parts 27 and 29 to make 

them applicable only to pneumatic 

systems. These proposed changes would 

allow for the use of modern technology 

to monitor and display highly integrated 

information regarding the rotorcraft that 

is currently not permitted. The FAA 

also proposes revising appendix B to 

parts 27 and 29 to remove the 

amendment level as previously 

discussed in section B of the preamble. 

F. Electrical Systems and Equipment 

(§ 29.1351) and Energy Storage Systems 

(§§ 27.1353 and 29.1353) 

The FAA proposes changing 

§§ 27.1353 and 29.1353 to provide a 

general regulation that is not directed at 

a particular battery or battery chemistry. 

The existing regulations were first 

written when backup electrical power 

was provided solely by a lead acid 

battery. The regulations were later 

amended to add requirements specific 

to the nickel-cadmium battery 

chemistry. Recently, batteries have been 

developed using various lithium 

chemistries. Lead acid, nickel-cadmium, 

and lithium batteries are all energy 

storage devices with different 

operational parameters and failure 

mechanisms. Rather than add specific 

lithium battery requirements, which 

would necessitate further amendments 

to address future energy storage 

chemistries, the FAA is proposing to 

generalize the regulation to 

accommodate any energy storage 

system. The proposed regulation would 

be less prescriptive than the existing 

regulation. 

The FAA’s intent with this proposal 

is that the modified regulation would be 

directly applicable to both lead acid and 

nickel-cadmium batteries without 

imposing additional requirements. In 

addition, this generalized approach 

would allow the FAA to consider 

batteries, fuel cells, or any other energy 

storage device not yet developed. 

Certain attributes tied to a specific 

battery chemistry currently found in the 

regulation would be addressed in AC 

27–1B and AC 29–2C. These proposed 

changes to §§ 27.1353 and 29.1353 are 

intended to reduce the burden on the 

FAA and the rotorcraft industry 

associated with issuing special 

conditions and the related issue papers. 

Section 29.1353, paragraphs (a) and 

(b) would be moved into § 29.1351 as 

paragraphs (e) and (f) respectively. 

These paragraphs are general 

requirements for all electrical systems 

and equipment installations. This 

change is proposed for consistency 

because those requirements are more 

appropriate in § 29.1351. This proposed 

change would standardize the 

requirements of §§ 27.1353 and 29.1353 

and both section titles would be 

changed to ‘‘Energy storage systems’’ to 

properly reflect the new language. 

G. Instrument Markings (§§ 27.1545, 

29.1545, 27.1549, and 29.1549) 

The FAA proposes to modify 

§§ 27.1545(b)(4), 27.1549(b), 

29.1545(b)(4), and 29.1549(b) by 

eliminating the restriction of only using 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 50587 

a ‘‘green arc’’ to indicate normal 

operating ranges. The existing rules 

require using a green arc for normal 

operating ranges on airspeed and 

powerplant instruments. Modern glass 

cockpits generally do not contain these 

green indicators. The philosophy 

utilized by modern cockpit designs is 

the ‘‘dark, quiet cockpit,’’ and only 

yellow or red is presented to indicate 

the aircraft is outside the normal or safe 

operating range. The absence of green 

arcs did not meet the requirement of the 

rule. Since the rule was promulgated, 

the FAA has determined that if all 

abnormal conditions are otherwise 

adequately indicated, green markings 

are unnecessary. These accepted design 

features include the pilot being able to 

easily interpret (by way of glancing at 

the instrument) whether a parameter is 

in a precautionary range (yellow) or 

beyond a limit (red). Almost every 

current rotorcraft design now 

incorporates a glass cockpit that 

requires an ELOS finding for the 

absence of green arcs. This proposal 

only affects the color utilized for the 

normal operating ranges and does not 

address graduation markings on an 

instrument. 

The FAA also proposes to remove the 

term ‘‘radial’’ from §§ 27.1545(b)(1), 

27.1549(a), 29.1545(b)(1), and 

29.1549(a). At the time these rules were 

promulgated, cockpit instruments were 

circular, and therefore the technicallycorrect term ‘‘radial line’’ was used. 

Technological advances have since 

produced linear-scale gauges rendering 

the term ‘‘radial’’ obsolete. The term 

‘‘line’’ is intended to represent a radial 

for round instruments or a line for tape 

or other style instruments. 

The FAA further proposes to replace 

‘‘arc’’ with ‘‘range’’ in §§ 27.1545(b)(3), 

27.1545(b)(4), 27.1549(b), 27.1549(c), 

27.1549(d), 29.1545(b)(3), 29.1545(b)(4), 

29.1549(b), 29.1549(c), and 29.1549(d). 

When these regulations were created, 

cockpit instruments were circular. 

‘‘Arc’’ is a term that only applies to 

round gauges and not to tape or other 

style instruments, which are in popular 

use today. The FAA intends ‘‘range’’ to 

be applied to round, tape, or other style 

instruments. 

Finally, the FAA proposes to move 

the requirement for indicating VNE

(power-off) from § 27.1545(b)(2) to 

§ 27.1545(b)(1)(iii) and modify it to 

encompass designs that incorporate a 

means other than a red cross-hatched 

line. The FAA has previously accepted 

designs that utilize a single red line for 

VNE (power-on) and VNE (power-off) 

when not concurrently displayed. 

Additionally, a red and white crosshatched ‘‘barber pole’’ may not be the 

only acceptable method for 

distinguishing VNE (power-off) from VNE

(power-on). The FAA also proposes to 

apply this change to § 29.1545. 

H. Control Markings (§§ 27.1555 and 

29.1555) 

The FAA proposes to modify 

§§ 27.1555(c)(1) and 29.1555(c)(1) to 

permit more than one method to inform 

the pilot of the usable fuel system 

capacity. The existing rules require 

marking the usable fuel capacity at the 

fuel quantity indicator. Older, analog 

fuel gauges (many without numbers) 

used a placard to inform the pilot of the 

useful fuel quantity. With modern 

display systems, the location of the fuel 

quantity indicator, as well as the fact 

that the location may change, make it 

impractical to affix a placard next to the 

display. In addition, although useful 

fuel capacity is commonly included in 

the rotorcraft flight manual, the 

proposed alternate method would make 

this a requirement to address the lack of 

continuous display provided by a 

placard. 

I. Typographical and Standardizing 

Corrections (§§ 27.87, 27.903, 29.955, 

29.977, 29.1019, 29.1517, and 29.1587) 

The FAA proposes to correct several 

typographical errors and to revise 

certain terminology differences between 

part 27 and part 29. First, the FAA 

proposes to revise the title of § 27.87 to 

coincide with the title of § 29.87, which 

is the equivalent transport category 

rotorcraft requirement. The title of 

§ 29.87 was changed from ‘‘Limiting 

height-speed envelope’’ to ‘‘Heightvelocity envelope’’ in order to ‘‘agree 

with the commonly used term.’’ 

However, the corresponding title to 

§ 27.87 was not similarly changed at 

that time. 

The FAA also proposes to replace the 

term ‘‘height-speed’’ with the term 

‘‘height-velocity’’ throughout 

§§ 27.1587, 29.1587, and 29.1517 to be 

consistent with the title nomenclature of 

§§ 27.87 and 29.87. These proposed 

changes are intended to reduce 

confusion between and within parts 27 

and 29. 

The FAA also proposes to reformat 

§ 27.903(d) so that it is consistent with 

the format of the § 29.903(e) engine 

restart capability requirement. When the 

§ 27.903(d) restart capability 

requirements were adopted, the 

paragraph structure of the existing 

§ 29.903(e) was not used even though 

the technical requirements were 

intended to be identical. The restart 

capability requirements of § 27.903(d) 

are not being changed in this proposal. 

These proposed changes are intended to 

reduce confusion between part 27 and 

part 29 by using a standard format for 

the same technical requirements. 

The FAA proposes to correct a 

typographical error in §§ 29.955 and 

29.1019. When § 29.1305 was updated 

to add a requirement for an oil pressure 

indicator for pressure-lubricated 

gearboxes, the numbering sequence was 

changed when the additional 

requirement was inserted at paragraph 

(a)(6). The § 29.1305(a)(17) fuel filter 

contamination warning was moved to 

paragraph (a)(18), and the 

§ 29.1305(a)(18) turbine engine filter 

contamination warning was moved to 

paragraph (a)(19). However, the 

reference to the fuel filter contamination 

warning in § 29.955(a)(7) and the 

turbine engine filter contamination 

warning in § 29.1019(a)(5) were not 

updated to account for the change in 

numbering sequence. This proposed 

change would correct the reference at 

§§ 29.955(a)(7) and 29.1019(a)(5). 

Finally, the FAA proposes to correct 

a typographical error in § 29.977. When 

§ 29.977 was updated, it incorrectly 

carried over references to ‘‘airplanes’’ 

from an identical part 23 update. The 

proposed change would revise § 29.977 

by removing the term ‘‘airplanes’’ and 

replacing it with the term ‘‘rotorcraft.’’ 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct 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 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
50588 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this proposed rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it to be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this proposed rule. The reasoning for 

this determination follows: 

The FAA proposes to revise 

regulations in 14 CFR part 27 

(Airworthiness Standards: Normal 

Category Rotorcraft) and part 29 

(Airworthiness Standards: Transport 

Category Rotorcraft) related to the 

certification of rotorcraft. The proposed 

changes are necessary due to advancing 

technologies, which address a lack of 

adequate airworthiness standards 

resulting from increasing design 

complexity. As a result, many regulatory 

sections are subject to reoccurring 

special conditions, ELOS, and MOC 

issue papers. This proposed rulemaking 

would address these problem areas by 

updating the rules that cause 

unnecessary burdens in cost and time to 

both the FAA and the rotorcraft 

industry. The compliance cost to 

industry of these proposed regulation 

changes would be minimal. The 

justification for minimal cost by 

regulation is identified in sections 1 

through 9 below. 

1. Powerplant Instruments (§§ 27.1305 

and 29.1305) 

Changes to this section would allow 

for other means of compliance for 

powerplant instrument indicators. Other 

means of compliance are voluntary and 

do not impose any new cost but could 

be cost relieving for those that choose to 

voluntarily comply. Additionally, for 

§ 29.1305, the FAA would permit 

manipulating the powerplant 

instruments to simulate OEI conditions 

without damaging the engines. 

However, helicopters with OEI Training 

Mode would require additional 

indicators to differentiate the OEI 

condition from actual engine failure, but 

these indicators are already being 

installed in current rotorcraft. The FAA 

believes this proposed change would 

impose minimal new cost to industry, as 

these are current industry practice. 

2. Normal Category Rotorcraft 

Equipment, Systems, and Installations 

(§ 27.1309 and Appendix C to Part 27) 

The FAA clarifies the requirement to 

perform proper failure analysis that 

would adopt the current industry 

practice of five failure category 

conditions. Additionally, the FAA 

eliminates the distinction between 

single-engine and multi-engine 

rotorcraft as this distinction is irrelevant 

because current analysis tools for 

technologies and associated failure 

effects no longer consider the number of 

engines. As these are current industry 

practice, the FAA asserts that the cost 

associated with these changes is 

minimal. 

3. Transport Category Rotorcraft 

Equipment, Systems, and Installation 

(§ 29.1309) 

This section would be updated to be 

consistent with industry standards and 

practices for conducting failure analysis. 

The proposed rule would clarify the 

requirement to perform a proper failure 

analysis and also recognize that the 

severity of failures can vary. The FAA 

asserts that performing a proper failure 

analysis would be minimal cost as it 

would codify current industry practices. 

Additionally, this section would be 

changed to accommodate future changes 

in industry failure analysis techniques 

and reflects current certification 

practices. Moving to a performance 

based standard would reduce the need 

to issue recurring special conditions and 

potentially save manufactures that 

choose to use an alternative means of 

compliance. Thus, these proposed 

changes would impose minimal cost. 

4. Automatic Flight Guidance and 

Control Systems (§§ 27.1329, 27.1335, 

29.1329, and 29.1335) 

The FAA proposes to standardize 

terminology and combine the 

requirements for automatic pilot and 

flight director systems into one rule. 

Modern designs include both automatic 

pilot and flight director systems and are 

now referred to as automatic flight 

guidance and control systems. Changes 

to this section would match current 

industry practices at a minimal cost. 

5. Instrument Systems (§ 29.1333 and 

Appendix B to Parts 27 and 29) 

The FAA proposed change would 

allow for the use of more modern 

integrated systems to monitor and 

display highly integrated information 

regarding the rotorcraft. This section 

would impose minimal cost as the 

updates reflect modern industry 

practices of integrating instrument 

systems. 

6. Electrical Systems and Equipment 

(§ 29.1351) and Energy Storage Systems 

(§§ 27.1353 and 29.1353) 

The FAA proposed changes are less 

prescriptive and performance-based to 

accommodate different energy storage 

systems. The modified regulation would 

be directly applicable to both lead acid 

and nickel-cadmium batteries without 

imposing additional requirements. The 

change would allow the FAA to keep up 

with changes in technology. Cost to the 

industry should be minimal as 

performance based requirements allow 

for minimal cost options to meet the 

current standard. 

7. Instrument Markings (§§ 27.1545, 

29.1545, 27.1549, and 29.1549) 

The proposed rule would remove the 

restrictive requirement for some 

instrument markings to allow 

alternative means of compliance, i.e.— 

green arc, radial red line, etc. Allowing 

for another means of compliance is 

voluntary and would be either a 

minimal cost and possibly cost relieving 

for manufactures that elect to outfit the 

rotorcraft with different instrument 

markings. 

8. Control Markings (§§ 27.1555 and 

29.1555) 

The proposed rule would permit more 

than one method to inform the pilot of 

the usable fuel system capacity. 

However, alternative method must 

address the lack of continuous display. 

Changes to this section allows for more 

than one means of compliance. Offering 

alternative means of compliance allows 

industry to meet the requirement with 

the least costly option that can be cost 

relieving or the existing method of 

compliance, but either method would be 

no more than minimal cost. 

9. Typographical and Standardizing 

Corrections (§§ 27.87, 27.903, 29.955, 

29.977, 29.1019, 29.1517, and 29.1587) 

Costs for proposed changes to this 

section are minimal as these are strictly 

typographical or standardizing 

corrections. 

The FAA has, therefore, determined 

that this proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, and is not ‘‘significant’’ as 

defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures. The FAA requests 

comments with supporting justification 

about the FAA determination of 

minimal cost impact. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 50589 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ 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 rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. However, if an agency determines 

that a 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 proposes to amend the 

certification standards of normal and 

transport category helicopters. The 

proposed changes reflect modern 

designs currently used in the rotorcraft 

industry and would reduce the burden 

on applicants for certification of new 

rotorcraft designs. The proposed 

changes would reduce or eliminate the 

need for certain special conditions 

currently required to obtain certification 

of modern rotorcraft. This proposed rule 

would merely revise and clarify FAA 

rulemaking procedures; the expected 

outcome will have only a minimal cost 

impact on any small entity affected by 

this rulemaking action. 

If an agency determines that a 

rulemaking will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

head of the agency may so certify under 

section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as 

provided in section 605(b), the head of 

the FAA certifies that this rulemaking 

will not result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this proposed rule 

and determined that the potential 

benefits are available to both domestic 

and international firms which would 

either have no affect or a positive effect 

on international trade. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 

million in lieu of $100 million. This 

proposed rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA has determined that there would 

be no new requirement for information 

collection associated with this proposed 

rule. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these proposed 

regulations. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 5–6.6.f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has determined that this action 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, or the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, and, 

therefore, would not have Federalism 

implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it would not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and would not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from adopting 

the proposals in this document. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the proposal, explain 

the reason for any recommended 

change, and include supporting data. To 

ensure the docket does not contain 

duplicate comments, commenters 

should send only one copy of written 

comments, or if comments are filed 

electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
50590 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on this proposal, the FAA will consider 

all comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The FAA 

will consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. The agency may 

change this proposal in light of the 

comments it receives. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information: Commenters should not 

file proprietary or confidential business 

information in the docket. Such 

information must be sent or delivered 

directly to the person identified in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this document, and marked as 

proprietary or confidential. If submitting 

information on a disk or CD ROM, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD ROM, and 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

proprietary or confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, the agency does not 

place it in the docket. It is held in a 

separate file to which the public does 

not have access, and the FAA places a 

note in the docket that it has received 

it. If the FAA receives a request to 

examine or copy this information, it 

treats it as any other request under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552). The FAA processes such a request 

under Department of Transportation 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters 

must identify the docket number of this 

rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 27 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 29 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations 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. Amend § 27.87 by revising the 

section heading and paragraph (a) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 27.87 Height-velocity envelope. 

(a) If there is any combination of 

height and forward speed (including 

hover) under which a safe landing 

cannot be made under the applicable 

power failure condition in paragraph (b) 

of this section, a limiting height-velocity 

envelope must be established (including 

all pertinent information) for that 

condition, throughout the ranges of— 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 27.903 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 27.903 Engines. 

* * * * * 

(d) Restart capability. (1) A means to 

restart any engine in flight must be 

provided. 

(2) Except for the in-flight shutdown 

of all engines, engine restart capability 

must be demonstrated throughout a 

flight envelope for the rotorcraft. 

(3) Following the in-flight shutdown 

of all engines, in-flight engine restart 

capability must be provided. 

■ 4. Amend § 27.1305 by revising 

paragraphs (e), (k) introductory text, (n), 

and (o) to read as follows: 

§ 27.1305 Powerplant instruments. 

* * * * * 

(e) A means to indicate manifold 

pressure for each altitude engine. 

* * * * * 

(k) A means to indicate the r.p.m. of 

each engine and at least one tachometer, 

as applicable, for: 

* * * * * 

(n) A means to indicate the gas 

temperature for each turbine engine. 

(o) A means to enable the pilot to 

determine the torque of each turbine 

engine, if a torque limitation is 

established for that engine under 

§ 27.1521(e). 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Revise § 27.1309 to read as follows: 

§ 27.1309 Equipment, systems, and 

installations. 

The equipment, systems, and 

installations whose functioning is 

required by this subchapter must be 

designed and installed to ensure that 

they perform their intended functions 

under any foreseeable operating 

condition. For any item of equipment or 

system whose failure has not been 

specifically addressed by another 

requirement in this chapter, the 

following requirements also apply: 

(a) The design of each item of 

equipment, system, and installation 

must be analyzed separately and in 

relation to other rotorcraft systems and 

installations to determine and identify 

any failure that would affect the 

capability of the rotorcraft or the ability 

of the crew to perform their duties in all 

operating conditions. 

(b) Each item of equipment, system, 

and installation must be designed and 

installed so that: 

(1) The occurrence of any catastrophic 

failure condition is extremely 

improbable; 

(2) The occurrence of any minor 

failure condition is no more than 

probable; and 

(3) For the occurrence of any other 

failure condition, the probability of the 

failure condition must be inversely 

proportional to its consequences. 

(c) A means to alert the crew in the 

event of a failure must be provided 

when an unsafe system operating 

condition exists to enable them to take 

corrective action. Systems, controls, and 

associated monitoring and crew alerting 

means must be designed to minimize 

crew errors that could create additional 

hazards. 

(d) Compliance with the requirements 

of this section must be shown by 

analysis and, where necessary, by 

ground, flight, or simulator tests. The 

analysis must account for: 

(1) Possible modes of failure, 

including malfunctions and misleading 

data and input from external sources; 

(2) The effect of multiple failures and 

latent failures; 

(3) The resulting effects on the 

rotorcraft and occupants, considering 

the stage of flight and operating 

conditions; and 

(4) The crew warning cues and the 

corrective action required. 

■ 6. Amend § 27.1329 by revising the 

section heading, adding introductory 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 50591 

text, and revising paragraphs (a), (d), 

and (e) to read as follows: 

§ 27.1329 Automatic flight guidance and 

control system. 

For the purpose of this subpart, an 

automatic flight guidance and control 

system may consist of an autopilot, 

flight director, or a component that 

interacts with stability augmentation or 

trim. 

(a) Each automatic flight guidance and 

control system must be designed so that 

it: 

(1) Can be overpowered by the pilot 

to allow control of the rotorcraft; 

(2) Provides a means to disengage the 

system by the pilot to prevent it from 

interfering with the control of the 

rotorcraft; and 

(3) Provides a means to indicate to the 

flight crew its current mode of 

operation. 

Selector switch position is not 

acceptable as a means of indication. 

* * * * * 

(d) The system must be designed so 

that, within the range of adjustment 

available to the pilot, it cannot produce 

hazardous loads on the rotorcraft, or 

create hazardous deviations in the flight 

path, under any flight condition 

appropriate to its use or in the event of 

a malfunction. 

(e) If the automatic flight guidance 

and control system integrates signals 

from auxiliary controls or furnishes 

signals for operation of other 

equipment, there must be a means to 

prevent improper operation. 

* * * * * 

§ 27.1335 [Removed] 

■ 7. Remove § 27.1335. 

■ 8. Revise § 27.1353 to read as follows: 

§ 27.1353 Energy storage systems. 

Energy storage systems must be 

designed and installed as follows: 

(a) Energy storage systems must 

provide automatic protective features 

for any conditions that could prevent 

continued safe flight and landing. 

(b) Energy storage systems must not 

emit any explosive or toxic gases, 

smoke, or fluids except through 

designed venting provisions and must 

not accumulate in hazardous quantities 

within the rotorcraft. 

(c) Corrosive fluids or gases that 

escape from the system must not 

damage surrounding structures, adjacent 

equipment, or systems necessary for 

continued safe flight and landing. 

(d) The maximum amount of heat that 

can be generated during any operation 

or under any failure condition of the 

energy storage system or its individual 

components must not result in any 

hazardous effect on rotorcraft structure, 

equipment, or systems necessary for 

continued safe flight and landing. 

(e) Energy storage system installations 

required for continued safe flight and 

landing of the rotorcraft must have 

monitoring features and a means to 

indicate to the pilot the status of all 

critical system parameters. 

■ 9. Amend § 27.1545 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 27.1545 Airspeed indicator. 

* * * * * 

(b) The following markings must be 

made: 

(1) A red line— 

(i) For rotorcraft other than 

helicopters, at VNE. 

(ii) For helicopters, at VNE (power-on). 

(iii) For helicopters, at VNE (poweroff). If VNE (power-off) is less than VNE

(power-on) and both are simultaneously 

displayed, the red line at VNE (poweroff) must be clearly distinguishable from 

the red line at VNE (power-on). 

(2) [Reserved] 

(3) For the caution range, a yellow 

range. 

(4) For the normal operating range, a 

green or unmarked range. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 27.1549 by revising 

paragraphs (a) through (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 27.1549 Powerplant instruments. 

* * * * * 

(a) Each maximum and, if applicable, 

minimum safe operating limit must be 

marked with a red line; 

(b) Each normal operating range must 

be marked as a green or unmarked 

range; 

(c) Each takeoff and precautionary 

range must be marked with a yellow 

range or yellow line; and 

(d) Each engine or propeller range that 

is restricted because of excessive 

vibration stresses must be marked with 

red ranges or red lines. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Amend § 27.1555 by revising 

paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 27.1555 Control markings. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) For fuel systems having no selector 

controls, the usable fuel capacity of the 

system must be indicated at the fuel 

quantity indicator unless it is: 

(i) Provided by another system or 

equipment readily accessible to the 

pilot; and 

(ii) Contained in the limitations 

section of the rotorcraft flight manual. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Amend § 27.1587 by revising 

paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 27.1587 Performance information. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Enough information to determine 

the limiting height-velocity envelope. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Amend appendix B to part 27 by 

revising paragraphs VIII introductory 

text and VIII(b)(5)(i) to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 27—Airworthiness 

Criteria for Helicopter Instrument 

Flight 

* * * * * 

VIII. Equipment, systems, and 

installation. The basic equipment and 

installation must comply with 

§§ 29.1303, 29.1431, and 29.1433, with 

the following exceptions and additions: 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(i) For pneumatic systems, only the 

required flight instruments for the first 

pilot may be connected to that operating 

system; 

* * * * * 

Appendix C to Part 27 [Amended] 

■ 14. In appendix C to part 27, amend 

paragraph C27.2 by removing the entry 

‘‘29.1309(b)(2) (i) and (d)-Equipment, 

systems, and installations.’’ 

PART 29—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT 

CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT 

■ 15. The authority citation for part 29 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44701–44702, 44704. 

■ 16. Amend § 29.955 by revising 

paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows: 

§ 29.955 Fuel flow. 

(a) * * * 

(7) The fuel filter required by § 29.997 

is blocked to the degree necessary to 

simulate the accumulation of fuel 

contamination required to activate the 

indicator required by § 29.1305(a)(18). 

* * * * * 

■ 17. Amend § 29.977 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 29.977 Fuel tank outlet. 

(a) * * * 

(1) For reciprocating engine powered 

rotorcraft, have 8 to 16 meshes per inch; 

and 

(2) For turbine engine powered 

rotorcraft, prevent the passage of any 

object that could restrict fuel flow or 

damage any fuel system component. 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Amend § 29.1019 by revising 

paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
50592 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

§ 29.1019 Oil strainer or filter. 

(a) * * * 

(5) An oil strainer or filter that has no 

bypass, except one that is installed at an 

oil tank outlet, must have a means to 

connect it to the warning system 

required in § 29.1305(a)(19). 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Amend § 29.1305 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(5), (11), and (12) and 

adding (b)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 29.1305 Powerplant instruments. 

(a) * * * 

(5) A means to indicate manifold 

pressure for each reciprocating engine of 

the altitude type; 

* * * * * 

(11) A means to indicate the gas 

temperature for each turbine engine; 

(12) A means to indicate the gas 

producer speed for each turbine engine; 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) For each Category A rotorcraft for 

which OEI Training Mode is requested, 

a means must be provided to indicate to 

the pilot the simulation of an engine 

failure, the annunciation of that 

simulation, and a representation of the 

OEI power being provided. 

* * * * * 

■ 20. Revise § 29.1309 to read as 

follows: 

§ 29.1309 Equipment, systems, and 

installations. 

The equipment, systems, and 

installations whose functioning is 

required by this subchapter must be 

designed and installed to ensure that 

they perform their intended functions 

under any foreseeable operating 

condition. For any item of equipment or 

system whose failure has not been 

specifically addressed by another 

requirement in this chapter, the 

following requirements also apply: 

(a) The design of each item of 

equipment, system, and installation 

must be analyzed separately and in 

relation to other rotorcraft systems and 

installations to determine and identify 

any failure that would affect the 

capability of the rotorcraft or the ability 

of the crew to perform their duties in all 

operating conditions. 

(b) Each item of equipment, system, 

and installation must be designed and 

installed so that: 

(1) The occurrence of any catastrophic 

failure condition is extremely 

improbable; 

(2) The occurrence of any minor 

failure condition is no more than 

probable; and 

(3) For the occurrence of any other 

failure condition, the probability of the 

failure condition must be inversely 

proportional to its consequences. 

(c) A means to alert the crew in the 

event of a failure must be provided 

when an unsafe system operating 

condition exists and to enable them to 

take corrective action. Systems, 

controls, and associated monitoring and 

crew alerting means must be designed to 

minimize crew errors that could create 

additional hazards. 

(d) Compliance with the requirements 

of this section must be shown by 

analysis and, where necessary, by 

ground, flight, or simulator tests. The 

analysis must account for: 

(1) Possible modes of failure, 

including malfunctions and misleading 

data and input from external sources; 

(2) The effect of multiple failures and 

latent failures; 

(3) The resulting effects on the 

rotorcraft and occupants, considering 

the stage of flight and operating 

conditions; and 

(4) The crew warning cues and the 

corrective action required. 

■ 21. Amend § 29.1329 by revising the 

section heading, adding introductory 

text, and revising paragraphs (a), (d), 

and (e) to read as follows: 

§ 29.1329 Automatic flight guidance and 

control system. 

For the purpose of this subpart, an 

automatic flight guidance and control 

system may consist of an autopilot, 

flight director, or a component that 

interacts with stability augmentation or 

trim. 

(a) Each automatic flight guidance and 

control system must be designed so that 

it: 

(1) Can be overpowered by the pilot 

to allow control of the rotorcraft; 

(2) Provides a means to disengage the 

system by the pilot to prevent it from 

interfering with the control of the 

rotorcraft; and 

(3) Provides a means to indicate to the 

flight crew its current mode of 

operation. Selector switch position is 

not acceptable as a means of indication. 

* * * * * 

(d) The system must be designed so 

that, within the range of adjustment 

available to the pilot, it cannot produce 

hazardous loads on the rotorcraft, or 

create hazardous deviations in the flight 

path, under any flight condition 

appropriate to its use or in the event of 

a malfunction. 

(e) If the automatic flight guidance 

and control system integrates signals 

from auxiliary controls or furnishes 

signals for operation of other 

equipment, there must be a means to 

prevent improper operation. 

* * * * * 

■ 22. Amend § 29.1333 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 29.1333 Instrument systems. 

* * * * * 

(a) For pneumatic systems, only the 

required flight instruments for the first 

pilot may be connected to that operating 

system. 

* * * * * 

§ 29.1335 [Removed] 

■ 23. Remove § 29.1335. 

■ 24. Amend § 29.1351 by adding 

paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows: 

§ 29.1351 General. 

* * * * * 

(e) Electrical equipment, controls, and 

wiring must be installed so that 

operation of any one unit or system of 

units will not adversely affect the 

simultaneous operation of any other 

electrical unit or system essential to safe 

operation. 

(f) Cables must be grouped, routed, 

and spaced so that damage to essential 

circuits will be minimized if there are 

faults in heavy current-carrying cables. 

* * * * * 

■ 25. Revise § 29.1353 to read as 

follows: 

§ 29.1353 Energy storage systems. 

Energy storage systems must be 

designed and installed as follows: 

(a) Energy storage systems must 

provide automatic protective features 

for any conditions that could prevent 

continued safe flight and landing. 

(b) Energy storage systems must not 

emit any explosive or toxic gases, 

smoke, or fluids except through 

designed venting provisions and must 

not accumulate in hazardous quantities 

within the rotorcraft. 

(c) Corrosive fluids or gases that 

escape from the system must not 

damage surrounding structures, adjacent 

equipment, or systems necessary for 

continued safe flight and landing. 

(d) The maximum amount of heat that 

can be generated during any operation 

or under any failure condition of the 

energy storage system or its individual 

components must not result in any 

hazardous effect on rotorcraft structure, 

equipment, or systems necessary for 

continued safe flight and landing. 

(e) Energy storage system installations 

required for continued safe flight and 

landing of the rotorcraft must have 

monitoring features and a means to 

indicate to the pilot the status of all 

critical system parameters. 

■ 26. Amend § 29.1517 by revising the 

section heading to read as follows: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 210 / Wednesday, November 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 50593 

§ 29.1517 Limiting height-velocity 

envelope. 

* * * * * 

■ 27. Amend § 29.1545 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 29.1545 Airspeed indicator. 

* * * * * 

(b) The following markings must be 

made: 

(1) A red line: 

(i) For rotorcraft other than 

helicopters, at VNE. 

(ii) For helicopters, at a VNE (poweron). 

(iii) For helicopters, at VNE (poweroff). If VNE (power-off) is less than VNE

(power-on) and both are simultaneously 

displayed, the red line at VNE (poweroff) must be clearly distinguishable from 

the red line at VNE (power-on). 

(2) [Reserved] 

(3) For the caution range, a yellow 

range. 

(4) For the normal operating range, a 

green or unmarked range. 

* * * * * 

■ 28. Amend § 29.1549 by revising 

paragraphs (a) through (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 29.1549 Powerplant instruments. 

* * * * * 

(a) Each maximum and, if applicable, 

minimum safe operating limit must be 

marked with a red line; 

(b) Each normal operating range must 

be marked as a green or unmarked 

range; 

(c) Each takeoff and precautionary 

range must be marked with a yellow 

range or yellow line; 

(d) Each engine or propeller range that 

is restricted because of excessive 

vibration stresses must be marked with 

red ranges or red lines; and 

* * * * * 

■ 29. Amend § 29.1555 by revising 

paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 29.1555 Control markings. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) For fuel systems having no selector 

controls, the usable fuel capacity of the 

system must be indicated at the fuel 

quantity indicator unless it is: 

(i) Provided by another system or 

equipment readily accessible to the 

pilot; and 

(ii) Contained in the limitations 

section of the rotorcraft flight manual. 

* * * * * 

■ 30. Amend § 29.1587 by revising 

paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows: 

§ 29.1587 Performance information. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6) The height-velocity envelope 

except for rotorcraft incorporating this 

as an operating limitation; 

* * * * * 

■ 31. Amend appendix B to part 29 by 

revising paragraphs VIII introductory 

text and VIII(b)(5)(i) to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 29—Airworthiness 

Criteria for Helicopter Instrument 

Flight 

* * * * * 

VIII. Equipment, systems, and 

installation. The basic equipment and 

installation must comply with 

§§ 29.1303, 29.1431, and 29.1433, with 

the following exceptions and additions: 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(i) For pneumatic systems, only the 

required flight instruments for the first 

pilot may be connected to that operating 

system; 

* * * * * 

Issued under authority provided by 

(Consult AGC) 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 

44703 in Washington, DC, on October 19, 

2017. 

David W. Hempe, 

Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory 

Operations, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23360 Filed 10–31–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2017–0848; Airspace 

Docket No. 13–ANE–2] 

Proposed Amendment of Class E 

Airspace, Berlin, NH 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

amend Class E airspace at Berlin, NH, 

due to the addition of a localizer 

performance with vertical guidance 

function (LPV) instrument procedure to 

runway 18 being created for Berlin 

Regional Airport (formerly Berlin 

Municipal Airport). This action also 

would update the geographic 

coordinates of the airport to coincide 

with the FAA’s aeronautical database, 

and would enhance the safety and 

management of instrument flight rules 

operations (IFR) at the airport. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 18, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg. 

Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 

(202) 366–9826. You must identify the 

Docket No. FAA–2017–0848; Airspace 

Docket No. 13–ANE–2, at the beginning 

of your comments. You may also submit 

and review received comments through 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov. You may review 

the public docket containing the 

proposal, any comments received, and 

any final disposition in person in the 

Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 

5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except federal holidays. 

FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, and 

subsequent amendments can be viewed 

on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_

traffic/publications/. For further 

information, you can contact the 

Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. The Order is 

also available for inspection at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of FAA 

Order 7400.11B at NARA, call (202) 

741–6030, or go to https://www.archives

.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, is 

published yearly and effective on 

September 15. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Fornito, Operations Support Group, 

Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation 

Administration, P.O. Box 20636, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 

305–6364. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it would 

amend Class E airspace at Berlin 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS