MEMORANDUM

DATE:06/18/2014
FROM: 		Laura Farris/EPA Region 8
TO:CLEAN Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602
SUBJECT:	Region 8's Regional Tribal Operations Committee Meeting held on 06/18/2014

SUMMARY:

EPA Region 8's Climate Change Coordinator, Laura Farris, presented information on the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants at the Region 8 Regional Tribal Operations Committee Meeting held on 06/18/2014. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA Region 8
Alfreda Mitre
Laura Farris
Blake Huff
Diana Hammer
Jennifer Wintersteen

Tribal Members
Deb Madison Environmental Director Assiniboine & Sioux Tribe
Gerald Wagner Environmental Director Blackfeet Tribe
David D. Nelson Environmental Director Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Mike Durglo Environmental Director Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes
Wanda Gourneau Environmental Director Crow Creek Sioux Tribe
Connie Howe Environmental Director Crow Tribe
Ryan Ortiz Environmental Director Eastern Shoshone & Northern Arapaho Tribes
Ina Nez Perce Environmental Director Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes
George Honeywell Environmental Director Lower Brule Sioux Tribe
Charlene Alden Environmental Director Northern Cheyenne Tribe
Suzy (Lloydell) Mesteth Environmental Director Oglala Sioux Tribe
Gaylord Robb Environmental Director Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah
Kevin Boyd Environmental Director Rosebud Sioux Tribe
Jerry Eastman Acting Env. Director, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate
Tom Johnson Division Head Southern Ute Indian Tribe
Joshua Tweeton Environmental Director Spirit Lake Nation
Allyson Two Bears Environmental Director Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
Edmund Baker Environmental Director Three Affiliated Tribes
Cora Champagn Environmental Director Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa
Ferron Sacakuku Director Ute Indian Tribe
Scott Clow Environmental Director Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
Richard Leasure Environmental Director Yankton Sioux Tribe

ATTACHMENTS
111d Presentation


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 7586]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02580]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0502; FRL-9921-92]

Badger Technical Services, LLC; Transfer of Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information
submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information
that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
by the submitter, will be transferred to Badger Technical Services,
LLC, in accordance with 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3) and 2.308(i)(2). Badger
Technical Services, LLC, has been awarded multiple contracts to perform
work for OPP, and access to this information will enable Badger
Technical Services, LLC, to fulfill the obligations of the contract.

DATES: Badger Technical Services, LLC, will be given access to this
information on or before February 17, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mario Steadman, Information Technology
and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0502. Publicly available
docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington,
VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Contractor Requirements

    Under this contract number, EP-D-13-052, the contractor will
perform the following:
    Furnish the necessary personnel, supplies, and equipment except as
otherwise defined, to perform toxicological and ecological research
support services for the United States, EPA, ORD/NHEERL Mid-Continent
Ecology Division (MED), Duluth, Minnesota. Obtain from sources which
have been approved by EPA, transport or arrange for shipping to MED,
and hold in the culturing unit, cultures of multiple species of fish
and invertebrates. Operate and maintain the Organism Culture Unit 24
hours a day, seven days a week, with the goal of providing the highest
quality organisms for MBD's research projects. Provide electronic
scientific equipment support.
    This contract involves no subcontractors.
    OPP has determined that the contract described in this document
involves work that is being conducted in connection with FIFRA,
pesticide chemicals will be the subject of certain evaluations to be
made under this contract. These evaluations may be used in subsequent
regulatory decisions under FIFRA.
    Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment.
The information has been submitted to EPA under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7
of FIFRA and under sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3), the
contract with Badger Technical Services, LLC, prohibits use of the
information for any purpose not specified in this contract; prohibits
disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written
approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and employee
of the contractor sign an agreement to protect the information from
unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the FIFRA
Information Security Manual. In addition, Badger Technical Services,
LLC, is required to submit for EPA approval a security plan under which
any CBI will be secured and protected against unauthorized release or
compromise. No information will be provided to Badger Technical
Services, LLC, until the requirements in this document have been fully
satisfied. Records of information provided to Badger Technical
Services, LLC, will be maintained by EPA Project Officers for this
contract. All information supplied to Badger Technical Services, LLC,
by EPA for use in connection with this contract will be returned to EPA
when Badger Technical Services, LLC, has completed its work.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: January 28, 2015.
Mark A. Hartman,
Director, Information Technology and Resource Management Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-02580 Filed 2-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8729-8740]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02771]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2023 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

[Docket No.: FAA-2017-0990; Amdt. Nos. 27-51, 29-59]
RIN 2120-AK80

Normal and Transport Category Rotorcraft Certification

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending the certification standards of normal and
transport category rotorcraft. These changes are necessary to address
modern designs currently used in the rotorcraft industry and will
reduce the burden on applicants for certification of new rotorcraft
designs. The changes will reduce or eliminate the need for certain
special conditions currently required to obtain certification of modern
rotorcraft. These changes also incorporate the provisions of equivalent
level of safety findings and means of compliance issue papers that the
FAA has made when approving certain design features.

DATES: Effective April 11, 2023.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How
To Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.

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.Shelle[email protected].

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 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
promotes safety by updating the minimum prescribed standards used
during the type certification process.

I. Overview of Final Rule

    This final rule revises 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. These changes
are necessary due to the extensive application of advancing
technologies to rotorcraft. Current airworthiness standards do not
adequately address increasing design complexity. To address these
advances, the FAA has been issuing reoccurring special conditions,
equivalent level of safety (ELOS) findings, and means of compliance
(MOC) issue papers. This final rule addresses these areas by updating
those standards that have been addressed by these special conditions,
ELOS findings and MOC issue papers. Compliance with the regulatory
changes implemented by this final rule will continue to be shown by the
same testing, analysis, and inspections required by existing special
conditions, ELOS findings and MOC issue papers. However, there will be
a reduced administrative burden, to both the rotorcraft industry and
the FAA, through the reduction or elimination of reoccurring special
conditions, ELOS findings, and MOC issue papers.

II. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    This final rule updates parts 27 and 29 because the regulations in
these parts were originally published in 1964 and past revisions to the
airworthiness standards have not kept pace with advances in technology
for rotorcraft. The FAA addresses these changes to technology by
issuing reoccurring special conditions, ELOS findings, and MOC issue
papers. These three processes are necessary to address new design
features for which airworthiness standards are lacking, compliance with
a rule cannot be achieved, or alternative methods of compliance are
proposed. 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 Sec.  21.21(b)(1)
where a design does not 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.
    The process of developing, drafting and finalizing these special
conditions, ELOS findings, and MOC issue papers has an impact on both
the FAA's and the applicants' resources. In addition, they impact
applicants' schedules for obtaining FAA approval of their products. By
updating the affected standards, many of these special conditions, ELOS
findings, and MOC issue papers are now unnecessary, thus reducing the
burden on both the FAA and industry.
    In some cases, advancements in technology have rendered the
regulations in parts 27 and 29 obsolete. This final rule revises those
regulations. This final rule also updates a few of these rules to
correct typographical errors.

B. National Transportation Safety Board Recommendations

    As a result of incidents involving smoke and fire caused by failure
of lithium batteries installed on Boeing 787 aircraft, the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued Safety

Recommendations A-14-032 through 036 to the FAA on May 22, 2014.\1\ 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 final rule incorporates
these NTSB recommendations as they relate to rotorcraft into Sec. Sec.
27.1353 and 29.1353.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A-14-032-036.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Summary of the NPRM

    On November 1, 2017, the FAA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), ``Normal and Transport Category Rotorcraft
Certification'' (82 FR 50583). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed changes
necessary to address modern designs currently used in the rotorcraft
industry and to reduce the burden on applicants for certification of
new rotorcraft designs. The FAA proposed changes that would reduce or
eliminate the need for certain special conditions that were often
required to obtain certification of modern rotorcraft. The FAA also
proposed to incorporate the provisions of ELOS findings and MOC issue
papers that the FAA has made when approving certain design features.
    The comment period closed on January 30, 2018.

D. General Overview of Comments

    The FAA received comments from 22 commenters. About half of the
commenters were individuals. The remaining commenters included the
NTSB, aviation manufacturers, industry groups and organizations, and
foreign civil aviation authorities. One commenter, the Aircraft
Electronics Association, supported the proposed rule without change.
Most commenters were generally supportive of the proposal but some
suggested changes to the proposed rule, as discussed in more detail
later in this preamble. Some comments were beyond the scope of the
proposal.

III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

A. Engines (Sec.  27.903(d))

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to reformat the paragraph designation
in Sec.  27.903(d) to be consistent with Sec.  29.903(e). When Sec.
27.903(d) was adopted, the paragraph designation of Sec.  29.903(e) was
not used even though the FAA intended the requirements to be identical.
This designation led to confusion. This final rule eliminates the
confusion by reformatting the paragraph designation in Sec.  27.903(d)
as proposed in the NPRM. The restart capability requirements of Sec.
27.903(d) are not being changed in this rulemaking.
    Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Bell) and the General Aviation
Manufacturers Association (GAMA) requested that part 27 appendix C be
revised to remove the need for compliance with Sec.  29.903(e), as the
requirements are identical to proposed Sec.  27.903(d). The FAA agrees
and has removed the reference to Sec.  29.903(e) from appendix C of
part 27.

B. Powerplant Instruments (Sec. Sec.  27.1305 and 29.1305)

    Current Sec. Sec.  27.1305 and 29.1305 prescribe the specific
required powerplant instruments for rotorcraft. The changes to these
sections will allow for other means of compliance for certain
powerplant instrument indicators. Additionally, for Sec.  29.1305, the
FAA will permit an optional feature to simulate one engine inoperative
(OEI) conditions without damaging the engines. Rotorcraft with OEI
Training Mode will require additional indications to differentiate the
simulated OEI conditions from actual engine failure.
    Airbus Helicopters requested that the FAA use different wording to
describe a synthesized power indicator (SPI) for an instrument that
provides a single indicator of engine performance, because presenting
the information as a percentage of power to the nearest engine limit is
only one of the methods of informing the flightcrew.
    The commenter's request did not pertain to the proposed regulatory
text but rather to industry examples in the NPRM preamble. However, the
guidance associated with this final rule, Advisory Circulars (AC) 27-
1B, Certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft and AC 29-2C,
Certification of Transport Category Rotorcraft, identifies other
concepts of showing proximity to engine limits other than as a
percentage.
    Airbus Helicopters also commented that certification of SPIs can be
accomplished using the existing rules, and provided examples of two
designs that have been approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA). These technologies could only be certificated in the past by
the FAA through processes such as that necessary for an ELOS finding. A
key purpose of this rulemaking is to reduce or eliminate the need for
reoccurring special conditions, ELOS findings, and MOC issue papers.
Therefore, the FAA has made no changes to the regulatory text in
response to this comment.
    Bell, GAMA, Transport Canada, and an individual requested the FAA
expand the changes to Sec. Sec.  27.1305 and 29.1305 to allow
synthesized dual/triple tachometers. This requested change is beyond
the scope of the proposal. A key purpose of this rulemaking is to
reduce or eliminate the need for reoccurring special conditions, ELOS
findings, and MOC issue papers. The FAA has not issued any of these
documents for synthesized dual or triple tachometers.
    EASA requested that the FAA change the reference in the proposed
Sec.  27.1305(o) from engine ``torque'' to engine ``power'' to be
consistent with Sec.  29.1305(a)(16) and allowing for other forms of
power determination. The requirement in Sec.  27.1305(o) to display
engine torque to the pilot is contingent on the establishment of a
torque limitation for the engine under Sec.  27.1521(e). Therefore, the
requested change would create an incompatibility between Sec. Sec.
27.1305(o) and 27.1521(e). The FAA did not make any changes in response
to this comment.
    Transport Canada requested that the FAA correct a typographical
error in the current Sec.  27.1305(k)(2) and change ``or'' to ``and.''
Transport Canada noted that this correction would make the wording of
Sec.  27.1305(k)(2) identical to that section's part 29 counterpart,
Sec.  29.1305(a)(14)(ii). The FAA notes that the word ``or'' in Sec.
27.1305(k)(2) is not a typographical error. The difference in wording
between Sec.  27.1305(k)(2) and Sec.  29.1305(a)(14)(ii) has existed in
the Federal Aviation Regulations from the promulgation of parts 27 and
29 to replace the Civil Air Regulations.\2\ Moreover, the requested
change would increase the regulatory requirement. The FAA did not make
any changes in response to this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 29 FR 15694 (Nov. 24, 1964); 29 FR 16148 (Dec. 3, 1964).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transport Canada also requested the FAA change the wording in
proposed Sec.  29.1305(a)(5) from ``a means to indicate manifold
pressure for each reciprocation engine, of the altitude type'' to ``a
means to indicate manifold pressure for each altitude engine'' to align
the reference to this type of

reciprocating engine with references to this same engine type used
throughout part 27. The FAA agrees and has made this change.
Additionally, this change provides consistency with Sec.  27.1305(e)
and with the identification of this type of engine elsewhere in part
29, and the term ``altitude engine'' is as type of engine that is a
reciprocating engine.
    Bell, GAMA, and an individual proposed new language for Sec.
27.1305 that would permit OEI training mode capability. OEI Training
Mode is a design feature for Category A training purposes. As explained
by the FAA in the NPRM, the FAA did not propose these changes because
part 27 Category A rotorcraft are approved under appendix C to part 27,
which requires compliance with Sec.  29.1305. The FAA did not make any
changes in response to these comments.

C. Rotorcraft Equipment, Systems, and Installations (Sec. Sec.
27.1309, 29.1309, and Appendix C to Part 27)

    Sections 27.1309 and 29.1309 require applicants to assess the
effects of failures resulting from installed systems and equipment. The
changes to Sec.  27.1309 made by this final rule now address advances
in technology and increases in performance of normal category
rotorcraft that were not envisioned when the rule was originally
promulgated, and eliminate the distinction between single-engine and
multi-engine rotorcraft. The final rule broadens the scope of the
previous performance-based requirement to include catastrophic failure
conditions, thus eliminating the need for recurring special conditions.
The final rule also more closely aligns with current industry practices
and accommodates potential future changes in industry failure analysis
techniques.
    EASA requested the FAA reserve the paragraph numbering and allocate
new paragraph numbers for the new regulatory text to avoid confusion
between the proposed regulations and previous amendments. The FAA has
determined that this requested change is impracticable as it would
result in numerous regulatory paragraphs without content. Part 21
requires aviation manufacturers to be familiar with the airworthiness
standards that are effective as the certification basis as of the date
of their application for a type certificate. EASA also suggested
designating the first paragraph under Sec. Sec.  27.1309 and 29.1309 as
``(a)'' for clarity. The FAA did not add such a designation because the
first two sentences of Sec. Sec.  27.1309 and 29.1309 are generally
applicable requirements.
    Bell, GAMA, Robinson Helicopter Company (Robinson), and two
individuals commented that the proposed changes to Sec.  27.1309 would
increase the amount of analysis necessary to show compliance for normal
category rotorcraft. GAMA and Bell stated that the proposed changes
would exceed what is required to address complex systems, eliminate the
distinction between single and multi-engine rotorcraft, and fail to
maintain sufficient distinction from Sec.  29.1309. Bell and GAMA also
expressed that an increase in certification burden would be imposed by
the changes, and be likely to cause significant economic damage to the
rotorcraft industry. Similarly, Robinson stated that the proposed
changes to Sec.  27.1309 would significantly increase the regulatory
burden on normal category rotorcraft by removing the distinction
between single and multi-engine. According to Robinson, this would
require additional failure analysis by the applicant, and alerting
means in the design, resulting in a significant increase in the cost
and complexity of small helicopters. Bell and GAMA requested that the
proposed Sec.  27.1309 be replaced with the recently promulgated Sec.
23.2510, while Robinson requested that none of the proposed changes be
made to Sec.  27.1309.
    This rulemaking does not change the current industry standard and
compliance means for non-critical and noncomplex (simple) systems and
equipment installed in normal category rotorcraft. As explained in the
NPRM, the distinction between single and multi-engines no longer
reflects the level of complexity of the systems installed in
rotorcraft. Most applicants have been using industry standard methods,
such as SAE/ARP 4761, for conducting their system safety analyses to
show compliance with Sec.  27.1309. These methods require assessment at
the aircraft level regardless of whether the proposed design is a
single or multi-engine configuration. As stated in the NPRM, the
applicant's method for conducting the failure analysis remains the
same. The changes eliminate the need for special conditions by
incorporating prior special condition requirements for catastrophic and
hazardous failure conditions into the rule text. The changes also
provide a means for the integration of new technology into part 27
rotorcraft. A means of compliance for noncomplex (simple) systems is
already provided in the guidance material for normal and transport
category rotorcraft. Finally, the request to incorporate Sec.  23.2510,
a performance-based regulation contingent on the use of consensus
standards, is beyond the scope of the NPRM.
    Bell, GAMA, and Robinson commented that the changes to Sec.
27.1309 eliminate an applicant's use of the FAA's safety continuum
policy for part 27 rotorcraft. The FAA clarifies that the safety
continuum policy, Policy No. PS-ASW-27-15, dated June 30, 2017,\3\
provides a tiered approach for compliance with Sec.  27.1309, based
upon the rotorcraft's weight, occupant capacity, and number and type of
engines. This policy remains applicable as an option for any applicant.
Under the policy, the certification rigor for simpler, less complex
rotorcraft and systems differs from that which is necessary for more
complex rotorcraft and systems to show compliance with Sec.  27.1309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/0D4AF6EE7F3013848625815600705441.0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EASA, Transport Canada, and an individual requested additional
definition of the applicability of Sec. Sec.  27.1309 and 29.1309. The
commenters stated there will be confusion regarding whether to apply
Sec. Sec.  27.1309 and 29.1309 to systems outside of the current
subpart. The FAA recognized the need to be clear about the
applicability of the regulation; therefore, the proposed introductory
text published in the NPRM for Sec. Sec.  27.1309 and 29.1309 clarified
that the rule would apply to any system or equipment whose failure has
not been specifically addressed by another requirement in chapter I of
title 14 of the CFR. The FAA has determined that the proposed
regulatory text is adequately clear and has adopted it without change
in this final rule.
    EASA and Thales AVS France commented on the proposed ACs intended
to provide acceptable means to comply with Sec. Sec.  27.1309 and
29.1309. These commenters requested that the AC text providing that
``the catastrophic failure condition should not result from a single
failure'' should be included in the regulation to resolve the
inconsistency resulting from the inclusion of such language in the AC
but not the regulatory text. The guidance materials provide analysis
techniques for showing how an applicant can achieve ``extremely
improbable'' in conjunction with a single failure. Single failures are
not the only failure conditions that need to be addressed in order for
the analysis to be complete. The FAA has clarified this in AC 27-1B and
AC 29-2C, which

provide acceptable means to comply with Sec. Sec.  27.1309 and 29.1309.
    Bell and GAMA requested the FAA not adopt the proposed requirement
in Sec. Sec.  27.1309(a) and 29.1309(a) for equipment, systems, and
installations to be analyzed for hazards both individually and with
regard to their integration with the rest of the aircraft. The
commenters stated that the appropriate safety analysis methodologies
for the equipment to be installed are already covered by paragraph (d)
in Sec. Sec.  27.1309 and 29.1309. The commenters stated the specific
analysis is defined in guidance, and that including this statement in
the regulation imposes a significant increase in the certification
burden. This is incorrect. The requirement the commenters opposed for
inclusion in paragraph (a) is already present in Sec.  29.1309 and is
included in special conditions for part 27 to certify proposed design
features such as autopilot systems. In addition, this regulatory text
does not dictate a specific analysis methodology to be used to show
compliance; therefore, there is no increase in the certification
burden.
    GAMA, EASA, and Thales AVS France requested that the FAA change
proposed Sec. Sec.  27.1309(b) and 29.1309(b) to specify three levels
of failure classification: catastrophic, hazardous, and major. In the
NPRM, the FAA proposed a top level failure classification
(catastrophic), a bottom level (minor), and any other level in between
as long as the probability of the failure condition is inversely
proportional to its consequences. EASA and GAMA stated that the
proposed rule change would increase the regulatory burden by requiring
the same analysis for minor failure conditions as for other, more
severe failure conditions.
    The FAA recognizes that proposed Sec. Sec.  27.1309(b)(2) and
29.1309(b)(2) would have inadvertently raised the regulatory burden.
That was not the FAA's intent, so in this final rule the FAA has
revised Sec. Sec.  27.1309(b)(2) and 29.1309(b)(2) to change the bottom
level failure classification to major, in order to maintain the current
regulatory requirement.
    The final rule provides flexibility for future changes in industry
standards and practices by allowing as many levels of failure
classification as an applicant wishes to propose, as long as the
probability of the failure condition is inversely proportional to its
consequences.
    GAMA and an individual requested that the FAA make the language in
Sec. Sec.  27.1309(c) and 29.1309(c) consistent with one another, in
that the word ``and'' is missing from Sec.  27.1309(c). As explained in
the NPRM, the FAA intended for these two sections to be consistent and
thus, has corrected this error in this final rule such that ``and'' is
included in Sec.  27.1309(c), consistent with current Sec.  29.1309(c).
    Bell and GAMA commented on the FAA proposal to remove Sec. Sec.
29.1309(b)(2) and 29.1309(e), which are specific to Category A
rotorcraft, stating that these provisions are necessary companions to
Sec.  29.903(b) engine systems isolation requirements. The commenters
stated that without a specific regulation for Category A systems and
equipment, Sec.  29.903(b) becomes the specific regulation and applies
rather than Sec.  29.1309. The commenters provided an example that, in
order to show compliance with Sec.  29.903(b), it would be necessary to
show physical isolation between left engine and right engine indication
systems, instead of providing integrated displays with redundancy
rather than isolation with an appropriate probability for failure
conditions that might affect both engine's indications. The commenters
are correct that Sec.  29.903(b) is the specific regulation for
Category A engine isolation requirements. However, the Sec.  29.903(b)
analysis is limited to systems required for engine operations. The
commenters' application of this analysis to engine indication systems
and displays, which do not affect engine operation, is misplaced.
Section 29.1309 requires applicants to assess the effects of failures
resulting from installed systems and equipment, such as engine
indicators or displays that may be necessary for performing Category A
operations. These requirements are unchanged by the proposals in the
NPRM.
    GAMA requested that proposed Sec. Sec.  27.1309(d)(2) and
29.1309(d)(2), which require an analysis of ``[t]he effect of multiple
failures and latent failures,'' be revised to preclude future
interpretations of this paragraph as requiring consideration of
multiple failures of unrelated functions or systems.
    Although there are cases where the failures of unrelated functions
or systems should be considered, the FAA shares the commenter's concern
on the need to limit multiple failure analysis so that every
combination of failures of unrelated functions or systems will not need
to be considered. The FAA has changed the guidance material, AC 27-1B
and AC 29-2C, to provide guidance to help applicants determine the
depth of analysis necessary when considering multiple failures in
complying with Sec. Sec.  27.1309(d)(2) and 29.1309(d)(2).
    GAMA and Transport Canada requested that for the analysis of crew
warning cues in proposed Sec. Sec.  27.1309(d)(4) and 29.1309(d)(4),
the FAA correct the word ``warning.'' In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to
replace the term ``warning'' with ``annunciation,'' but in Sec. Sec.
27.1309(d)(4) and 29.1309(d)(4) the term ``warning'' remained in the
proposed regulatory text. However, Transport Canada suggested that
``warning'' be replaced with ``alerting.''
    The FAA has determined that the term ``alerting'' is generally
understood to include warnings and cautions that may include aural and
visual types of cues to the pilot as appropriate. The FAA agrees that
``alerting'' more accurately conveys the requirement, and so has
included it in this final rule.
    An individual requested the FAA address the additional costs that
may be incurred by U.S. applicants seeking validation of type-
certificated products by EASA. The commenter states that the FAA's
changes to Sec. Sec.  27.1309 and 29.1309 compromise the rules'
harmonization with EASA's rules.
    The FAA's changes in this final rule incorporate the provisions of
prior special conditions. EASA has validated several aircraft designs
with the provisions of these special conditions. Therefore, the
commenter's concern about additional costs during validation is not
warranted.

D. Automatic Pilot and Flight Guidance System (Sec. Sec.  27.1329 and
29.1329)

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise Sec. Sec.  27.1329 and
29.1329 by combining the existing requirements for automatic pilot with
those of Sec. Sec.  27.1335 and 29.1335 for flight director systems
into one rule for automatic pilot and flight guidance systems. EASA
noted the FAA proposed to change the requirements in Sec. Sec.
27.1329(a)(1) and 29.1329(a)(1) so that the system can be overpowered
by ``one pilot'' to ``the pilot'' and in Sec. Sec.  27.1329(a)(2) and
29.1329(a)(2) that the system can be disengaged by ``each pilot'' to
``the pilot.'' EASA stated that these changes reduce the level of
safety, as the prior rules required that the effort of one pilot be
enough to overpower the system. The effect of the proposed language as
described by EASA was not the FAA's intent. Accordingly, the final rule
refers to ``one pilot,'' in Sec. Sec.  27.1329(a)(1) and 29.1329(a)(1)
and ``each pilot'' in Sec. Sec.  27.1329(a)(2) and 29.1329(a)(2) to be
consistent with the existing regulatory requirement.

    Transport Canada noted that the proposed rule appeared to include
fly-by-wire in its definition of an automatic flight guidance and
control system, and that manufacturers would not be able to comply with
a requirement to completely disengage a fly-by-wire system. Transport
Canada therefore requested the rule be changed so that a proposed
design would only have to only disengage ``any malfunctioning
components of'' the system.
    The FAA did not intend for Sec. Sec.  27.1329 and 29.1329 to cover
flight control systems, including fly-by-wire. The section title and
the introductory sentence have been changed in this final rule to
remove references to ``control.'' Sections 27.1329(a)(2) and
29.1329(a)(2) have also been changed in this final rule so that
applicants may design the system to either disengage the entire system,
any malfunctioning component of the system, or both.
    Bell, GAMA, Transport Canada, and Thales AVS France commented that
the proposed Sec. Sec.  27.1329(d) and 29.1329(d) would have eliminated
the condition of ``assuming that corrective action begins within a
reasonable period of time.'' The commenters stated that the FAA did not
explain the elimination of this statement.
    The existing text identified by commenters was inadvertently
omitted from the NPRM, but is included in this final rule.

E. Instrument Systems (Sec.  29.1333 and Appendix B to Parts 27 and 29)

    Current Sec.  29.1333(a) requires isolating the pilot instrument
system from any other operating systems because at the time the rule
was promulgated, these systems were federated, and connecting the
systems increased the likelihood that a fault in one system could cause
a failure in the pilot instrument system. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed
to revise Sec.  29.1333(a) and section VIII(b)(5)(i) of appendix B to
parts 27 and 29 limiting it to pneumatic systems, allowing for the use
of current technology to display integrated information to the pilot.
    Airbus Helicopters requested that the FAA change the word
``system'' to ``parts'' so that the requirement for physical
independence only applies to the pneumatic parts of a system.
    The FAA intended for only the pneumatic portion of the system to
have physical independence. The FAA is not changing the proposed rule
text as suggested by the commenter because the word ``parts,'' could be
interpreted as a component as opposed to only the pneumatic portion of
the system. This section of the rule is adopted as proposed in the
NPRM.

F. Energy Storage System (Sec. Sec.  27.1353 and 29.1353)

    The FAA's current regulations pertaining to batteries for
rotorcraft include requirements specific to lead-acid batteries and
nickel-cadmium batteries. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed performance-
based requirements to accommodate any energy storage system. As a
result, this final rule incorporates, for rotorcraft, the NTSB's
recommendation that the FAA require aircraft manufacturers to
demonstrate acceptable performance as part of the certification of any
new aircraft design that incorporates the installation of lithium-ion
batteries.
    Bell and GAMA requested that the FAA modify proposed Sec. Sec.
27.1353(a) and 29.1353(a) by removing the word ``automatic'' from the
protective design features required for hazard mitigation, and
expressed concern that a requirement that the features be ``automatic''
would increase certification requirements. Current Sec. Sec.
27.1353(g) and 29.1353(c) contain a similar requirement for automatic
features to monitor the battery system for nickel-cadmium batteries and
prevent or mitigate an over temperature condition or battery failure.
Special conditions issued by the FAA to certificate lithium battery
installations have required automatic features to monitor the battery
system and protect the aircraft. The proposed regulation does not
change this requirement but rather incorporates it into a rule that
accommodates any energy storage system. Some energy storage system
hazards may occur too rapidly to be mitigated by pilot action;
therefore, automatic monitoring and control is necessary which would
not increase certification requirements.
    In another comment, the NTSB suggested including more prescriptive
language in Sec. Sec.  27.1353(a) and 29.1353(a) to address all
possible mitigation strategies. By using performance-based
requirements, this final rule allows both current and future mitigation
strategies. A prescriptive list of current acceptable mitigation
strategies may not allow for future energy storage technologies.
Accordingly, in this final rule, the FAA has adopted Sec. Sec.
27.1353(a) and 29.1353(a) as proposed.
    Bell and GAMA requested modifying proposed Sec. Sec.  27.1353(b)
and 29.1353(b), because they would have required venting as the means
of limiting the accumulation of hazardous gases, fluids, and smoke. The
FAA agrees with these comments and has adopted Bell and GAMA's
recommended language in this final rule, in order to allow other types
of hazard mitigation. The intent of the rule is to require that
emissions not accumulate in hazardous (flammability, toxicity,
visibility, etc.) quantities. Designs may accomplish this through
venting or through other means.
    Bell and GAMA commented that the term ``damage'' in Sec. Sec.
27.1353(c) and 29.1353(c) is unclear and requested that the rule be
revised from ``must not damage surrounding structures, adjacent
equipment, or systems necessary for continued safe flight and landing''
to ``must not result in any hazardous effect on structures, equipment,
or systems necessary for continued safe flight and landing.'' The
language proposed in the NPRM was retained from the current rule and
accurately captures the requirement. The commenter's suggested change
would allow damage to occur undetected until it evolved into a
hazardous condition, which was not the intent of the rule. Accordingly,
in this final rule, the FAA has adopted Sec. Sec.  27.1353(c) and
29.1353(c) as proposed.
    The NTSB requested that proposed Sec. Sec.  27.1353(d) and
29.1353(d) be revised to address the maximum amount of pressure from an
energy storage system failure. The FAA agrees, since a rapid increase
in pressure that exceeds the maximum amount for an energy storage
system that is not contained may result in damage to surrounding
systems or structure. Proposed Sec. Sec.  27.1353(d) and 29.1353(d)
have been revised consistent with the NTSB comment.
    GAMA commented that the Sec. Sec.  27.1353(e) and 29.1353(e)
requirement to provide a means to monitor and inform the pilot of
energy storage system health precludes other mitigating design features
and may be unnecessary when effective containment measures are used.
GAMA requested adding an alternative requirement to allow sufficient
containment of the energy storage system.
    GAMA's requested change to Sec. Sec.  27.1353(e) and 29.1353(e)
would invalidate the requirement that the pilot be notified of all
critical system parameters. The pilot must know the health of the
required energy storage system. The regulation does not preclude other
mitigating strategies but these must include a means for the pilot to
know the condition of all critical system parameters. Accordingly, in
this final rule, the FAA has adopted Sec. Sec.  27.1353(e) and
29.1353(e) as proposed.

G. Airspeed Indicator (Sec.  27.1545)

    Current Sec.  27.1545 requires instruments to be marked with a
green arc and red radial lines. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to remove
the restrictive requirement for some instrument markings to allow
alternative means of compliance.
    Bell and GAMA requested the rule specify when VNE must
be displayed, allow provisions for variable VNE information,
and clarify that a VNE caution range is not always
applicable. These requested changes are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking, which was to make the color and depiction of the airspeed
indicator markings less prescriptive. In addition, the suggested
wording would be more prescriptive, and therefore restrict traditional
systems from being approved.
    An individual requested the FAA change the term ``yellow arc'' in
Sec.  27.1545(b)(3) to ``amber arc'' to be consistent with Sec.
27.1322(b). The requested change is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking, which was to eliminate the need for reoccurring MOC issue
papers for a lack of green arc in modern electronic displays. The FAA
has not created any issue papers because of the requirement for a
``yellow'' arc.

H. Powerplant Instruments (Sec.  27.1549)

    The current regulation requires instruments to be marked with a
green arc and red radial lines. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to remove
these requirements for some instrument markings.
    EASA suggested the term ``radial'' in Sec. Sec.  27.1549(a) and
29.1549(a) be replaced with ``range,'' similar to the proposed
Sec. Sec.  27.1549(d) and 29.1549(d). Sections 27.1549(a) and
29.1549(a) specify the requirement for marking of maximum and minimum
safe operating limits. A red line is a defined limit. A range, in this
context, would allow a level of ambiguity in the marking of the
indicator. The FAA did not make any changes in response to the comment.
    Transport Canada requested that the term ``marked'' be changed to
``displayed'' throughout Sec. Sec.  27.1549 and 29.1549. The term
``marked'' is more consistent with the other instrument regulations for
rotorcraft and airplanes. The FAA did not make any changes in response
to the comment.
    An individual requested the FAA change the term ``yellow arc'' in
Sec. Sec.  29.1549(b)(3) and 29.1549(c) to ``amber arc'' to be
consistent with Sec.  27.1322(b). The requested change is beyond the
scope of this rulemaking, which was to eliminate the need for
reoccurring MOC issue papers for a lack of green arc in modern
electronic displays. The FAA has not created any issue papers because
of the requirement for a ``yellow'' arc.
    Bell and GAMA requested that the word ``propeller'' be changed to
``rotor'' in Sec. Sec.  27.1549(d) and 29.1549(d). The word
``propeller'' comes from a prior rule amendment to parts 27 and 29 that
was based on a part 25 rule. Although ``propeller'' is an appropriate
term for airplanes, ``rotor'' is the more appropriate term for
rotorcraft. The FAA agrees and has made the requested change.
    One commenter noted the typographical omission of the word ``and''
between the proposed Sec. Sec.  27.1549(d) and 27.1549(e). The FAA has
corrected this error in this final rule by including ``and'' at the end
of paragraph (d), consistent with the current rule.

I. Control Marking (Sec. Sec.  27.1555 and 29.1555)

    The control marking regulations required marking the usable fuel
capacity at the fuel quantity indicator. The intent of these
regulations was to provide a continuous indication of usable fuel
capacity at the fuel quantity indicator. Older, analog gauges used a
placard to comply with this requirement. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed
performance-based requirements to permit other means of informing the
pilot of the usable fuel system capacity. However, this final rule
requires that alternative methods address any lack of continuous
display by ensuring the information is readily accessible to the pilot.
    Bell and GAMA requested modifying proposed Sec. Sec.  27.1555(c)(1)
and 29.1555(c)(1) to require ``a means to provide the usable fuel
capacity to the pilot.'' The intent of the language proposed in the
NPRM was to keep the existing requirement for applicants that choose to
follow that method, while providing an additional, less prescriptive
method.
    Similarly, EASA requested the FAA make the requirement more generic
by eliminating the reference ``to the pilot'' within Sec. Sec.
27.1555(c)(1)(i) and 29.1555(c)(1)(i), since this information is also
used during maintenance and servicing. However, removing the
requirement that the information be accessible to the pilot would not
ensure that the pilot always has access to the data, which is the
purpose of this rule.
    GAMA also requested modifying Sec. Sec.  27.1555(c)(2) and
29.1555(c)(2), which contains usable fuel capacity requirements for
fuel systems with selector controls, to match the proposed language in
Sec. Sec.  27.1555(c)(1) and 29.1555(c)(1) for fuel systems with no
selector controls. The changes in the NPRM were proposed to eliminate
the issues associated with placarding a digital display in a modern
glass cockpit. Placarding near or at the selector switches does not
create these issues.
    Additionally, GAMA requested that the FAA update Sec. Sec.
27.1583(b)(3) and 29.1583(b)(3) to require that the flight manual
include the usable fuel capacity information required per Sec. Sec.
27.1555(c)(1) and 29.1555(c)(1) respectively. This requested change is
not appropriate, because the requirement to add the capacity
information into the flight manual is only necessary if it is not
continuously displayed at the indicator. The commenter's requested
language would require the information in the flight manual for all
designs.
    Airbus Helicopters requested that the FAA clarify whether ``usable
fuel capacity'' refers to the actual remaining fuel or to the total
usable capacity of the fuel system. The FAA notes that the term
``usable fuel capacity'' refers to the total usable capacity of the
fuel system. The requirements for indicating the actual usable quantity
are contained within Sec. Sec.  27.1305, 27.1337, 29.1305, and 29.1337.
In the NPRM, the FAA did not propose modifying the language or meaning
of ``usable fuel capacity.'' Changing the meaning is outside the scope
of this rulemaking. The proposed rule language provides an alternative,
less prescriptive requirement allowing the applicant to relay the fuel
system capacity to the crew by means other than a placard at the fuel
quantity indicator.

J. Undue Burden on Industry

    In the NPRM preamble, the FAA stated that this rulemaking would
update several rules that cause unnecessary burdens in cost and time to
both the FAA and the rotorcraft industry. These changes are necessary
due to the extensive application of advancing technologies to
rotorcraft, which the airworthiness standards did not adequately
address. The FAA proposed that, by updating the affected standards,
many special conditions, ELOS findings, and MOC issue papers would
become unnecessary, thus reducing the burden of cost and time on the
FAA and industry.
    GAMA requested rewording or deleting ``reduced burden for the
rotorcraft industry,'' because showing compliance by the same testing
analysis and inspections strongly implies there is no reduced burden.
Additionally,

GAMA requested that the FAA perform an analysis of the economic impact
of the regulatory changes on small entities and provide access to the
results of such analysis in the proposed rulemaking.
    This rule updates parts 27 and 29 to address changes in technology
and to include updated airworthiness standards. The FAA maintains that
while compliance is shown by the same testing, analysis, and
inspections, there will be savings to both the FAA and industry from
updating the airworthiness standards. Updating the airworthiness
standards reduces the number of reoccurring special conditions, ELOS
findings, and MOC issue papers and the administration burden associated
with processing one of the three documents.
    Further information regarding final rule revisions that address
comments on this issue is provided in discussions, C. Rotorcraft
Equipment, Systems, and Installations (Sec. Sec.  27.1309, 29.1309, and
Appendix C to Part 27) and F. Energy Storage System (Sec. Sec.  27.1353
and 29.1353). Additionally, the FAA has complied with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act for this rulemaking and certified that a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required, as this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

K. Other Comments

    One individual requested guidance for installing antennas on
helicopters for both part 27 and 29. Two other individuals requested
the FAA adopt rules to address accident rates, such as adding Sec.
25.1302 to parts 27 and 29 and implementing Terrain Awareness and
Warning Systems and Radar Altimeters. Another individual provided
comments about minimum backup systems for VFR-only rotorcraft. The FAA
appreciates the interest in aviation safety from these commenters;
however, these comments were beyond the scope of this rulemaking
effort.

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). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.
    This final rule revises 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 changes are necessary because the
airworthiness standards did not adequately address the increases in
design complexity resulting from advancing technologies. As a result,
many regulatory sections have been subject to reoccurring special
conditions, ELOS findings, and MOC issue papers. This rulemaking
addresses these items by updating the rules that cause unnecessary
burdens in cost and time to both the rotorcraft industry and the FAA.
    The FAA received comments on the NPRM that was published on
November 1, 2017. The comments and the FAA's response to them are
discussed in ``III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule,'' in
the preamble to this final rule. The FAA made changes to the proposed
rule as a result of the public comments. However, the changes assisted
the FAA in clarifying and updating the proposal to ensure there will
not be additional costs from this rulemaking. These changes did not
result in additional costs to industry or the FAA. The FAA expects this
rule will not result in additional costs to industry since it
incorporates current industry practice. In addition, the rule will
provide small savings to industry and the FAA by avoiding the burden
and costs associated with developing special conditions, ELOS findings
and MOC issue papers. The rule affects U.S. manufacturers of normal and
transport category rotorcraft plus any rotorcraft operator or owner who
applies for a supplemental type certificate (STC). The remainder of
this section provides discussion of the impact and savings of this
final rule by topic.
1. Powerplant Instruments (Sec. Sec.  27.1305 and 29.1305)
    Changes to these sections will allow for other means of compliance
for certain powerplant instrument indicators. These means of compliance
are voluntary and do not impose any new cost but could be cost
relieving for applicants that choose to use them. Additionally, for
Sec.  29.1305, the FAA will permit an optional feature to simulate OEI
conditions without damaging the engines. Rotorcraft with OEI Training
Mode must have additional indications to differentiate the simulated
OEI condition from actual engine failure. The OEI Training Mode is
often installed in modern multi-engine rotorcraft. The FAA finds that
this change will not result in additional costs to industry. The OEI
Training Mode is optional and this change removes the need to issue
special conditions for those manufacturers or modifiers including OEI
training modes in their rotorcraft.
2. Normal Category Rotorcraft Equipment, Systems, and Installations
(Sec.  27.1309 and Appendix C to Part 27)
    The FAA revises the failure analysis requirement for equipment,
systems, and installations to reduce the need for special conditions.
These changes more closely align with current industry practices and
also accommodate future changes in industry failure analysis
techniques. Additionally, the FAA eliminates the distinction between
single-engine and multi-engine rotorcraft. This distinction is no
longer relevant because current analysis tools for technologies and
associated failure effects no longer consider the number of engines.
This will reduce the need to issue recurring special conditions,
potentially providing small savings for manufacturers and anybody who
modifies the rotorcraft. As these are current industry practice, the
FAA finds there are no additional costs associated with these changes.
3. Transport Category Rotorcraft Equipment, Systems, and Installation
(Sec.  29.1309)
    This section is updated to be consistent with industry standards
and practices for conducting failure analysis. The rule clarifies the
requirement to perform a failure analysis and recognizes that the
severity of failures can vary. Additionally, this section accommodates
future changes in industry failure analysis techniques and reflects
current certification practices.

The rule allows for other options that will reduce the need to issue
recurring special conditions, potentially providing small savings for
manufacturers and applicants looking to modify a rotorcraft.
4. Automatic Pilot and Flight Guidance Systems (Sec. Sec.  27.1329,
27.1335, 29.1329, and 29.1335)
    This rule standardizes terminology and combines the requirements
for automatic pilot and flight director systems into one rule. Modern
designs combine both automatic pilot and flight director systems and
are now referred to as automatic pilot and flight guidance systems.
5. Instrument Systems (Sec.  29.1333 and Appendix B to Parts 27 and 29)
    The change allows for the use of more modern integrated systems to
monitor and display highly integrated information regarding the
rotorcraft. This section does not impose additional costs as the
updates reflect modern industry practices of integrating instrument
systems.
6. Electrical Systems and Equipment (Sec.  29.1351) and Energy Storage
Systems (Sec. Sec.  27.1353 and 29.1353)
    The changes accommodate different energy storage systems. The
regulation applies to lead acid, nickel-cadmium, and lithium batteries
without imposing additional requirements. The changes will provide the
flexibility necessary for the regulations to keep up with changes in
technology.
7. Instrument Markings (Sec. Sec.  27.1545, 29.1545, 27.1549, and
29.1549)
    The final rule provides flexibility for some instrument markings.
Allowing for other markings will not result in additional mandatory
costs and may be possibly cost relieving for manufacturers that elect
to outfit the rotorcraft with different instrument markings.
8. Control Markings (Sec. Sec.  27.1555 and 29.1555)
    The rule permits more than one method to inform the pilot of the
usable fuel system capacity. However, alternative methods must address
the lack of continuous display currently required. Changes to this
section allow for more than one means of compliance at no additional
costs. Offering alternative means of compliance allows industry to meet
the requirement with the least costly option, which can be cost
relieving.
9. Typographical and Standardizing Corrections (Sec. Sec.  27.87,
27.903, 29.955, 29.977, 29.1019, 29.1517, and 29.1587)
    There are no additional costs for changes to these sections as
these are typographical or standardizing corrections.
    Based on the discussion above, the FAA has determined that this
final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

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 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.
    This final rule amends the certification standards of normal and
transport category rotorcraft to incorporate modern designs currently
used in the rotorcraft industry. Currently, changes in technology are
addressed by issuing reoccurring special conditions, ELOS findings, and
MOC issue papers. These three processes are necessary to address new
design features for which airworthiness standards are lacking,
compliance with a rule cannot be achieved, or alternative methods of
compliance are proposed. These special conditions, ELOS findings, and
MOC issue papers impact FAA and industry resources as well as
applicants' schedules for obtaining FAA approval of their products. By
updating the affected standards with this final rule, many special
conditions, ELOS findings, and MOC issue papers will become
unnecessary, thus reducing both the FAA and industry's administration
burden associated with processing one of the three documents.
    As the rule reduces the administrative burden and does not include
any new regulatory burden, the FAA expects this rule will not result in
additional costs and may result in small cost savings for 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 final rule and
determined that the potential benefits are available to both domestic
and international firms, which would either have no effect 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 final 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 final 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 final 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 rule under the principles and criteria of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this
action will 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 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
will not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and will not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

VI. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained from
the internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at
www.GovInfo.gov.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to https://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the
docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name
of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document,
may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble.
To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 27

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 29

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

The Amendments

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) parts 27 and 29 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.  27.87 by revising the section heading and paragraph (a)
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  27.87  Height-velocity envelope.

    (a) If there is any combination of height and forward velocity
(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--
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  27.903 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  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.

0
4. Amend Sec.  27.1305 by revising paragraphs (e), (k) introductory
text, (n), and (o) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  27.1521(e).
* * * * *

0
5. Revise Sec.  27.1309 to read as follows:

Sec.  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 major failure condition is no more than
improbable; and
    (3) For the occurrence of any other failure condition between major
and catastrophic, 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 alerting cues and the corrective action required.

0
6. Amend Sec.  27.1329 by revising the section heading, adding
introductory text, and revising paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  27.1329  Automatic pilot and flight guidance system.

    For the purpose of this subpart, an automatic pilot and flight
guidance system may consist of an autopilot, flight director, or a
component that interacts with stability augmentation or trim.
    (a) Each automatic pilot and flight guidance system must be
designed so that it:
    (1) Can be overpowered by one pilot to allow control of the
rotorcraft;
    (2) Provides a means to disengage the system, or any malfunctioning
component of the system, by each 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, assuming that corrective action begins within a reasonable
period of time.
    (e) If the automatic pilot and flight guidance system integrates
signals from auxiliary controls or furnishes signals for operation of
other equipment, there must be a means to prevent improper operation.
* * * * *

Sec.  27.1335  [Removed]

0
7. Remove Sec.  27.1335.

0
8. Revise Sec.  27.1353 to read as follows:

Sec.  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 flammable, explosive,
or toxic gases, smoke, or fluids that could 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 and pressure 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.

0
9. Amend Sec.  27.1545 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 (power-off). If
VNE (power-off) is less than VNE (power-on) and
both are simultaneously displayed, the red line at VNE
(power-off) 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.
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec.  27.1549 by revising paragraphs (a) through (d) to read
as follows:

Sec.  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;
    (d) Each engine or rotor range that is restricted because of
excessive vibration stresses must be marked with red ranges or red
lines; and
* * * * *

0
11. Amend Sec.  27.1555 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
12. Amend Sec.  27.1587 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  27.1587  Performance information.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Enough information to determine the limiting height-velocity
envelope.
* * * * *

0
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 Sec. Sec.  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;
* * * * *

0
14. In appendix C to part 27 amend section ``C27.2 Applicable part 29
sections'' by removing ``29.1309(b)(2)(i) and (d)--Equipment, systems,
and installations'' and by revising ``29.903(b)(c) and (e)--Engines''
to read as follows:

Appendix C to Part 27--Criteria for Category A

* * * * *
    29.903 (b) and (c)--Engines.
* * * * *

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

0
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.

0
16. Amend Sec.  29.955 by revising paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows:

Sec.  29.955  Fuel flow.

    (a) * * *
    (7) The fuel filter required by Sec.  29.997 is blocked to the
degree necessary to simulate the accumulation of fuel contamination
required to activate the indicator required by Sec.  29.1305(a)(18).
* * * * *

0
17. Amend Sec.  29.977 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
18. Amend Sec.  29.1019 by revising paragraph (a)(5) to read as
follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  29.1305(a)(19).
* * * * *

0
19. Amend Sec.  29.1305 by revising paragraphs (a)(5), (11), and (12)
and adding (b)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  29.1305  Powerplant instruments.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (5) A means to indicate manifold pressure for each altitude engine;
* * * * *
    (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.
* * * * *

0
20. Revise Sec.  29.1309 to read as follows:

Sec.  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 major failure condition is no more than
improbable; and
    (3) For the occurrence of any other failure condition in between
major and catastrophic, 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 alerting cues and the corrective action required.

0
21. Amend Sec.  29.1329 by revising the section heading, adding
introductory text, and revising paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  29.1329  Automatic pilot and flight guidance system.

    For the purpose of this subpart, an automatic pilot and flight
guidance system may consist of an autopilot, flight director, or a
component that interacts with stability augmentation or trim.
    (a) Each automatic pilot and flight guidance system must be
designed so that it:
    (1) Can be overpowered by one pilot to allow control of the
rotorcraft;
    (2) Provides a means to disengage the system, or any malfunctioning
component of the system, by each 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, assuming that corrective action begins within a reasonable
period of time.
    (e) If the automatic pilot and flight guidance system integrates
signals from auxiliary controls or furnishes signals for operation of
other equipment, there must be a means to prevent improper operation.
* * * * *

0
22. Amend Sec.  29.1333 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  29.1333  Instrument systems.

* * * * *
    (a) For pneumatic systems, only the required flight instruments for
the first pilot may be connected to that operating system.
* * * * *

Sec.  29.1335  [Removed]

0
23. Remove Sec.  29.1335.

0
24. Amend Sec.  29.1351 by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as
follows:

Sec.  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.

0
25. Revise Sec.  29.1353 to read as follows:

Sec.  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 flammable, explosive,
or toxic gases, smoke, or fluids that could 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 and pressure 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.

0
26. Amend Sec.  29.1517 by revising the section heading to read as
follows:

Sec.  29.1517  Limiting height-velocity envelope.

* * * * *

0
27. Amend Sec.  29.1545 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 VNE (power-on).
    (iii) For helicopters, at VNE (power-off). If
VNE (power-off) is less than VNE (power-on) and
both are simultaneously displayed, the red line at VNE
(power-off) 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.
* * * * *

0
28. Amend Sec.  29.1549 by revising paragraphs (a) through (d) to read
as follows:

Sec.  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 rotor range that is restricted because of
excessive vibration stresses must be marked with red ranges or red
lines; and
* * * * *

0
29. Amend Sec.  29.1555 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
30. Amend Sec.  29.1587 by revising paragraph (b)(6) to read as
follows:

Sec.  29.1587  Performance information.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) The height-velocity envelope except for rotorcraft
incorporating this as an operating limitation;
* * * * *

0
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 Sec. Sec.  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 in Washington, DC, on or about February 6, 2023.
Billy Nolen,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-02771 Filed 2-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30693-30694]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10842]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4451-024]

Green Mountain Power Corporation, City of Somersworth, New
Hampshire; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the
Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests and Establishing
Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for Submission of
Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent Minor License.
    b. Project No.: P-4451-024.
    c. Date filed: April 30, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Green Mountain Power and the City of Somersworth, New
Hampshire.
    e. Name of Project: Lower Great Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Salmon Falls River in Strafford County, New
Hampshire, and York County, Maine. No federal lands are occupied by the
project works or located within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. John Greenan, Green Mountain Power
Corporation, 1252 Post Road, Rutland, VT 05701; Phone at (802) 770-
2195, or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Amanda Gill at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 70
days from the date of filing of the application, and

serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: July 9, 2020.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY).
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. Project Description: The existing Lower Great Falls
Hydroelectric Project consists of: (1) A 297-foot-long, 32-foot-high
stone masonry and concrete dam that includes the following sections:
(a) A 176-foot-long spillway section with a crest elevation of 102.37
feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD) and 4-foot-high
flashboards at an elevation of 106.37 feet NGVD at the top of the
flashboards; (b) a 50-foot-long left abutment section; and (c) a 71-
foot-long right abutment section; (2) a 32-acre impoundment with a
normal elevation of 106.37 feet NGVD; (3) a 40.5-foot-wide, 20-foot-
high intake structure with four 5-foot-wide, 10.5-foot-high steel frame
gates and a trashrack with 2-inch bar spacing; (4) two steel penstocks
that include: (a) An 8.5-foot-diameter, 120-foot-long left penstock
that bifurcates into a 5.3-foot-diameter, 85-foot-long section and a
7.6-foot-diameter, 85-foot-long section; and (b) an 8.5-foot-diameter,
140-foot-long right penstock that bifurcates into a 7-foot-diameter,
85-foot-long section and a 7.6-foot-diameter, 85-foot-long section; (5)
a 46-foot-long, 30-foot-wide concrete and brick powerhouse with four
Francis turbine-generator units with a total capacity of 1.28 megawatt
(MW); (6) a 55-foot-long, 30-foot-wide tailrace; (7) a 260-foot-long
underground transmission line that delivers power to a 4.16-kilovolt
distribution line; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The project creates
a 250-foot-long bypassed reach of the Salmon Falls River between the
dam and the downstream end of the tailrace.
    The project operates as a run-of-river (ROR) facility with no
storage or flood control capacity. The project impoundment is
maintained at a flashboard crest elevation of 106.37 feet NGVD. The
current license requires the project to maintain a continuous minimum
flow of 6.05 cubic feet per second (cfs) or inflow, whichever is less,
to the bypassed reach for the purpose of protecting and enhancing
aquatic resources in the Salmon Falls River. The average annual
generation production of the project was 3,916,825 kilowatt-hours from
2005 through 2018.
    The applicant proposes to: (1) Continue operating the project in a
ROR mode; (2) provide a minimum flow of 30 cfs or inflow, whichever is
less, to the bypassed reach; (3) install an eel ramp for upstream eel
passage at the project; (4) implement targeted nighttime turbine
shutdowns to protect eels during downstream passage; (5) install a
downstream fish passage structure for eels and other fish species.
    o. In addition to publishing the full text of this notice in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this notice, as well
as other documents in the proceeding (e.g., license application) via
the internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov)
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document (P-
4451). At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the
Commission's Public Reference Room due to the proclamation declaring a
National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY).
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule and final amendments: The application will
be processed according to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions
to the schedule will be made as appropriate.

Issue Deficiency Letter (if necessary)--July 2020
Request Additional Information--July 2020
Issue Acceptance Letter--October 2020
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments--November 2020
Request Additional Information (if necessary)--January 2021
Issue Scoping Document 2--February 2021
Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis--February 2021
Commission issues Environmental Assessment--August 2021

    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-10842 Filed 5-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 244)]
[Notices]
[Page 76309]
[DOCID:fr20de06-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL07-23-000]

Notice of Filing; City of Banning, CA

December 14, 2006.
    Take notice that on December 5, 2006, the City of Banning,
California tendered for filing its fourth annual revision to its
Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 4, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21689 Filed 12-19-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P