[Federal Register: September 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 172)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51313-51317]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06se07-30]
[[Page 51313]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 33
Airworthiness Standards; Aircraft Engine Standards for Pressurized
Engine Static Parts; Proposed Rule
[[Page 51314]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 33
[Docket No. 2007-28501; Notice No. 07-08]
RIN 2120-AJ05
Airworthiness Standards; Aircraft Engine Standards for
Pressurized Engine Static Parts
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to amend the aircraft engine type
certification standards by adding standards for pressurized engine
static parts that are equivalent to those already adopted by European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The proposed rule would establish
uniform standards for the certification of these parts in the United
States and in Europe. U.S. manufacturers already meet the EASA
requirements.
DATES: Comments to be submitted on or before December 5, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket No. FAA-2007-
28501, using any of the following methods:
DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 1-
202-493-2251.
Hand Delivery: Take comments to the Docket Management
Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
For more information on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information that you
provide. For more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://dms.dot.gov at any time or, to Docket Management Facility; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Mouzakis, Federal Aviation
Administration, Engine and Propeller Directorate Standards Staff, ANE-
110, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service,
12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299;
telephone: (781) 238-7114; facsimile: (781) 238-7199; e-mail:
timoleon.mouzakis@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble, under the Additional
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how
you can get a copy of this proposal and related rulemaking documents.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
Requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce, including minimum safety
standards for aircraft engines. This regulation is within the scope of
that authority because it updates the existing regulations for aircraft
engine static parts.
Background
Part 33 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part
33) prescribes airworthiness standards for original and amended type
certificates for aircraft engines certificated in the United States.
The Certification Specifications for Engines (CS-E) prescribe
corresponding airworthiness standards for aircraft engine certification
in Europe by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). While part 33
and the European regulations are similar, they differ in several
respects. For applicants seeking certification under both part 33 and
CS-E, these differences can result in additional costs and delays.
In 1989, the FAA met with the European Joint Aviation Authorities
and U.S. and European aviation industry representatives to commence
rulemaking to harmonize U.S. and European certification standards.
Transport Canada subsequently joined this effort. The FAA tasked the
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) \i\ through its Engine
Harmonization Working Group to review existing regulations and
recommend changes that would eliminate differences in U.S. and European
engine certification standards for pressurized engine static parts.
This proposed rule is based on ARAC's recommendations to the FAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ Published in the Federal Register on October 20, 1998 (63 FR
56059). See Task 13: Fatigue Pressure Test/Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Discussion of the Proposal
Typically, pressurized engine static parts are external engine
cases or pressure vessels that operate at significant pressures. They
include, but are not limited to: Compressor, combustion, diffuser, and
turbine cases; heat exchangers; bleed valve solenoids; starter motors;
and fuel, oil and hydraulic system components. FAA regulations do not
contain explicit standards for these parts.
Engine case ruptures continue to contribute to propulsion risk.
Data from the Continued Airworthiness Assessment Methodologies (CAAM)
indicates that case ruptures were the 10th leading cause of CAAM level
3 or 4 events \ii\ from 1982 to 1996 and represent a significant hazard
to airplanes certificated under part 25. The proposed rule would
establish explicit structural integrity requirements for engine static
parts that may result in a reduction in burst events of pressurized
cases in future certificated engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ii\ Level 3 events involve serious consequences that cause
substantial damage to the aircraft or to a second, unrelated system.
Level 4 events involve severe consequences including either forced
landing, loss of aircraft, or serious injuries to passengers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. aircraft engine manufacturers who meet the European
certification requirements already comply with the intent of this
proposed regulation, since EASA's requirements contain these
[[Page 51315]]
proposed standards. This proposed rule would establish similar
certification standards in the United States and in Europe with respect
to pressurized parts/cases designed to contain pressurized gases or
liquids.
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. We have determined that there
are no new information collection requirements associated with this
proposed rule.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. We reviewed
the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
identified no differences with these proposed regulations.
Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (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, in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base year
of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does
not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to
that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a full
regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a
determination has been made for this proposed rule. The reasoning for
this determination follows:
This proposed rule:
Would use European certification requirements, CS-E 640,
as the basis for the proposed Sec. 33.64.
Would update the federal aviation regulations to reflect
current industry standards.
Would not result in incremental costs.
May reduce existing certification costs.
Presently, engine manufacturers must demonstrate compliance with
both part 33 and European certification standards to market turbine
engines in both the United States and Europe. Meeting two sets of
certification requirements raises the cost of developing a new turbine
engine.
EASA has adopted this proposed standard as CS-E 640 Pressure Loads.
This proposed rule would add the provisions of CS-E 640 Pressure Loads
to part 33 as a new Sec. 33.64, Pressurized engine static parts, under
Subpart E--Design and Construction; Turbine Aircraft Engines. We have
concluded, for the reasons discussed above, that adoption of this
proposed rule, consistent with the EASA standards, into part 33 would
be the most efficient way to enhance safety.
We estimate that no incremental costs are associated with this
proposal. Our review of turbine aircraft engine manufacturers revealed
that they currently design their engines to meet the standards of CS-E
640 Pressure Loads. Since our proposed rule would adopt this standard,
manufacturers would incur no additional costs resulting from this
proposal, if adopted as a final rule.
By creating common part 33 and EASA requirements, turbine engine
manufacturers would only need to design to one certification standard.
We did not attempt to quantify the cost savings from this specific
proposal, but note that harmonization in this area would contribute to
the overall savings that certification to one standard provides. We
have also concluded that further analysis is not required because
turbine engine manufacturers are already designing to the CS-E 640
Pressure Loads standard that this document proposes.
This expected outcome of this proposal would be a minimal impact
with positive net benefits. Therefore, a complete regulatory evaluation
was not prepared. The FAA requests comments with supporting
justification about the FAA determination of minimal impact.
In view of the above, we determined that this proposed rule is not
a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
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.
We believe that this proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We
identified six companies that produce civil turbine aircraft engines in
the United States. Only one, Williams International, is a small entity.
The other five U.S. turbine aircraft engine manufacturers exceed the
Small Business Administration small entity criteria of 1,000 employees
for North American Industrial Classification 2002
[[Page 51316]]
(NAICS 2002)--No. 336412, Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts
Manufacturing. See the following table.
U.S. Civil Aircraft Turbine Engine Manufacturers and Number of Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Number Manufacturer Parent company employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............. GE Aviation General Electric 316,000 (Dec. 31,
Commercial Co. 2005) Source:
Engines. http://www.Hoovers.com.
Accessed: Feb.
12, 2007.
2.............. Honeywell Honeywell 116,000 (Dec. 31,
Aerospace. International 2005) Source:
Inc. http://www.Hoovers.com.
Accessed: Feb.
12, 2007.
3.............. International Consortium, > 1,000, Pratt &
Aero Engines incorporated in Whitney and
(IAE). Switzerland. Rolls-Royce both
Owned by: Pratt employ more than
& Whitney; Rolls- 1,000 people.
Royce; Japanese Therefore, IAE
Aero Engines is not a small
Corporation; & entity.
MTU Aero Engines.
4.............. Pratt & Whitney.. United 222,200 (Dec. 31,
Technologies 2005) Source:
Corporation. http://www.Hoovers.com.
Accessed: Feb.
12, 2007.
5.............. Rolls-Royce North Rolls-Royce Group 35,600 (Average
America. plc. Weekly, 2005)
Source:
http://www.Hoovers.com.
Accessed: Feb.
12, 2007.
6.............. Williams Intl.... ................. 600 (Dec. 31,
2004) Source:
http://www.Gale.com.
Accessed: Feb.
13, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We expect the proposed rule to have, at most, a minor effect on the
existing U.S. manufacturers because they are already meeting the
proposed rule's requirements.
Therefore the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination.
Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the
potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined that it is in
accord with the Trade Agreements Act as the proposed rule uses European
standards as the basis for U.S. regulations.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) 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 $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million.
This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Therefore, we determined that this notice of proposed
rulemaking would not have federalism implications.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E 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 proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in Chapter 3, paragraph 312d and
involves no extraordinary circumstances.
Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use
The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Additional Information
Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public
inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to
review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the
Internet at the web address in the ADDRESSES section.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
1. Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket
Management System (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search): 2. Visiting the Office of Rulemaking's web page at http://
http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfm; or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html
.
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
[[Page 51317]]
ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number, notice
number, or amendment number of this rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend part 33 of Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR part 33) as follows:
PART 33--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES
1. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704
2. Add Sec. 33.64 to Subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 33.64 Pressurized engine static parts.
(a) Strength. The applicant must establish by test, validated
analysis, or a combination of both, that all static parts subject to
significant gas or liquid pressure loads for a stabilized period of one
minute will not:
(1) Exhibit permanent distortion beyond serviceable limits or
exhibit leakage that could create a hazardous condition when subjected
to the greater of the following pressures:
(i) 1.1 times the maximum working pressure;
(ii) 1.33 times the normal working pressure; or
(iii) 35 kPa (5 PSI) above the normal working pressure.
(2) Exhibit fracture or burst when subjected to the greater of the
following pressures:
(i) 1.15 times the maximum possible pressure;
(ii) 1.5 times the maximum working pressure; or
(iii) 35 kPa (5 PSI) above the maximum possible pressure.
(b) Compliance with this section must take into account:
(i) The operating temperature of the part;
(ii) Any other significant static loads in addition to pressure
loads;
(iii) Minimum properties representative of both the material and
the processes used in the construction of the part; and
(iv) Any adverse geometry conditions allowed by the type design.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 30, 2007.
John J. Hickey,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7-17626 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P