Document ID: FAA-2016-9275-0001
Agency: faa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Rotorcraft Pilot Compartment View
Posted Date: 2016-10-17T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 200 (Monday, October 17, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71412-71415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24957]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

[Docket No.: FAA-2016-9275; Notice No. 16-07]
RIN 2120-AK91

Rotorcraft Pilot Compartment View

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to revise its rules for pilot compartment 
view to allow ground tests to demonstrate compliance for night 
operations. The current regulations require night flight testing to 
demonstrate compliance, which is not necessary in every case. The 
proposed rule would relieve the burden of performing a night flight 
test under certain conditions.

DATES: Send comments on or before November 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number (Docket No.: FAA-
2016-9275) 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 technical questions concerning 
this action, contact Clark Davenport, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety 
Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, 
Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5151; email 
Clark.Davenport@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 Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is issued under the authority described in Subtitle 
VII, Part A, Subpart III, Sections 44701 and 44704. Under that section, 
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 
regulation 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 to address an equivalent 
method of showing compliance.

I. Background

Statement of the Problem

    The FAA's rules on airworthiness standards for the pilot 
compartment in rotorcraft and the requirements for each pilot's view 
from that compartment are located in parts 27 and 29 of title 14 of

[[Page 71413]]

the Code of Federal Regulations. Specifically, Sec. Sec.  27.773(a) and 
29.773(a) require that each pilot compartment must be free of glare and 
reflection that could interfere with the pilot's view. Sections 
27.773(b) and 29.773(b) require a flight test to show compliance with 
paragraph (a) if certification for night operations is requested. While 
this requirement applies to all applicants for rotorcraft installations 
that may affect the pilot's ability to see outside the aircraft, the 
FAA has determined that a flight test may not be the only means 
available to show compliance for some modifications. As a result, the 
FAA has concluded that the current requirements in Sec. Sec.  27.773 
and 29.773 are imposing an unnecessary economic burden on applicants 
for certification for night operation.

II. Discussion of the Proposal

    Currently, Sec. Sec.  27.773(b) and 29.773(b) require all 
applicants for certification for night operations to conduct a night 
flight test to show compliance with Sec. Sec.  27.773(a) and 29.773(a). 
While manufacturers of newly type certificated rotorcraft will conduct 
night flight tests to comply with other rules and do not view this 
requirement as a significant additional burden, supplemental type 
certificate (STC) and field approval applicants have questioned the 
night flight test requirement for changes to the rotorcraft type 
design. STC and field approval applicants who add a piece of avionics 
equipment that minimally changes the lighting characteristics of the 
cockpit, for example a navigation or communication radio, have stated 
the requirement for a flight test is too costly compared to the scope 
of the modification.
    As an alternative, the applicants have proposed performing a ground 
test simulating night conditions. In some cases, a ground test will 
meet the requirements of Sec. Sec.  27.773(b) and 29.773(b) while 
significantly reducing the cost and burden to the applicant.
    Upon review of the flight test requirements in Sec. Sec.  27.773(b) 
and 29.773(b), based on the feedback received from numerous applicants, 
the FAA proposes to allow a ground test as an alternative to a night 
flight test in certain cases to show compliance for night operations. 
The FAA has determined that internal lighting modifications can be 
evaluated with a ground test, whereas external lighting modifications 
may require a flight test. For example, the applicant could demonstrate 
compliance by creating an environment where external light is blocked 
from entering the cockpit or where the rotorcraft is placed in a 
darkened hangar, paint booth, or other environment. In such a 
situation, the FAA has concluded that a ground test should provide the 
same level of safety as the existing regulations. The conditions under 
which a ground test would be acceptable and an acceptable means of 
compliance for the ground test would be addressed in Advisory Circular 
(AC) 27-1B, Certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft and AC 29-2C, 
Certification of Transport Category Rotorcraft.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Though the proposed rule would allow applicants to show compliance 
either by a flight test or ground test, it would not preclude the use 
of a night flight test. An applicant may conduct a flight test at night 
for other reasons and choose to use that flight to show compliance with 
Sec. Sec.  27.773 or 29.773. The FAA finds that the proposed change to 
allow a ground test as an option would be relieving to industry.

III. 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). 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 current regulations require night 
flight testing to demonstrate compliance for night operations. The 
proposed rule provides a ground test as an alternative to a night 
flight test in certain cases, such as internal lighting modifications. 
The requirements for a ground test are less stringent than a night 
flight test. Thus, the proposed rule would relieve the industry from 
the burden of performing a night flight test under certain conditions. 
The expected outcome would be a minimal economic impact with positive 
net benefits, and a regulatory evaluation was not prepared. The FAA 
requests comments with supporting justification about the FAA 
determination of minimal economic impact. 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.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that 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-for-profit 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

[[Page 71414]]

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 proposed rule provides a ground test as an alternative to a 
night flight test in certain cases, such as internal lighting 
modifications. The requirements for a ground test are less stringent 
than a night flight test. Thus, the proposed rule would relieve the 
industry from the burden of performing a night flight test under 
certain conditions. The expected outcome would be a minimal economic 
impact with positive net benefits 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 
offers potential regulatory relief to both domestic and international 
entities--thus does not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 
commerce of the United States.

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

    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 and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.

IV. 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.

C. Executive Order 13609, International Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet 
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, 
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent 
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has 
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of 
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have 
no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

V. 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 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.

[[Page 71415]]

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 or notice 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

0
2. Amend Sec.  27.773 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  27.773  Pilot Compartment View

* * * * *
    (b) If certification for night operation is requested, compliance 
with paragraph (a) of this section must be shown by ground or night 
flight tests.

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

0
1. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
0
2. Amend Sec.  29.773 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  29.773  Pilot Compartment View

    (a) * * *
    (2) Each pilot compartment must be free of glare and reflection 
that could interfere with the pilot's view. If certification for night 
operation is requested, this must be shown by ground or night flight 
tests.
* * * * *

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), 
and 44703 in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2016.
Dorenda D. Baker,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-24957 Filed 10-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P