[Federal Register: August 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 161)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48279-48286]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19au08-1]
========================================================================
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.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
[[Page 48279]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 33
[Docket No. FAA-2007-27311, Amendment No. 33-26]
RIN 2120-AI94
Airworthiness Standards; Engine Control System Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is amending type certification standards for aircraft
engine control systems. These changes reflect current industry
practices and harmonize FAA standards with those recently adopted by
the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). These changes establish
uniform standards for all engine control systems for aircraft engines
certificated by both U.S. and European countries and will simplify
airworthiness approvals for import and export.
DATES: This amendment becomes effective October 20, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this final rule contact Gary Horan, Engine and Propeller Directorate
Standards Staff, ANE-111, Federal Aviation Administration, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299; telephone
(781) 238-7164, fax (781) 238-7199, e-mail gary.horan@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is 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 proposed rule is within the scope
of that authority because it updates existing regulations for aircraft
engine control systems.
Background
U.S. and European aircraft engine regulations differ in several
areas including engine controls. Certifying to a common set of
requirements (harmonization) benefits industry and regulators because
of the lower costs associated with a single set of regulations.
The FAA, in cooperation with the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA),
the European rulemaking authority before EASA, established an
international engine certification study group to compare part 33 with
the Joint Aviation Requirements--Engines (JAR-E), the European
requirements for engines. As a follow-on, the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee, through its Engine Harmonization Working Group
(EHWG), looked at harmonizing the engine control requirements of part
33 and the JAR-E. This final rule reflects the agreed harmonization
between the FAA and the JAA that was subsequently adopted by EASA as
CS-E (Certification Specifications for Engines) 50.
Summary of the NPRM
A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published on April 11,
2007 (72 FR 18148) that proposed changes to Sec. Sec. 33.5, 33.7,
33.27, 33.28, 33.29, 33.53, and 33.91. The comment period for the NPRM
closed on July 10, 2007. These proposed changes would harmonize FAA and
EASA regulations for the referenced sections.
Summary of the Final Rule
This final rule on Engine Control System requirements contains no
significant changes from the NPRM published on April 11, 2007. We made
minor changes to several sections to ensure clarity and better
harmonization with EASA regulations. This rule harmonizes FAA and EASA
regulations for portions of Sec. Sec. 33.5, 33.7, 33.27, 33.28, 33.29,
33.53, and 33.91.
Summary of Comments
Five commenters, including an aircraft engine manufacturer and a
manufacturer of light business jets, responded to the NPRM request for
comments. The commenters supported the proposed rule while suggesting
minor changes.
The FAA received comments on the following general areas of the
proposal:
Instructions for installing the engine control transitions
Engine control system failures
Overspeed protection
System Safety Assessment (SSA) interfaces between engine
and aircraft
Programmable logic devices
Instrument connection
Discussion of the Final Rule
Below is a more detailed discussion of the rule as it relates to
the comments we received to the proposal.
Instructions for Installing and Operating the Engine
We revised Sec. 33.5, Instruction manual for installing and
operating the engine, to require applicants to list in the installation
instructions the instruments necessary for satisfactory control of the
engine. The new Sec. 33.5 also requires that the limits of accuracy
and transient response required for satisfactory engine operation be
identified so the suitability of the instruments as installed can be
assessed.
General Electric (GE) indicated the definition of the reliability,
accuracy, and transient response requirements should not be required in
part 33 and would be more appropriate for evaluation as part of
compliance with part 25.
During the design, development and certification of an engine, the
engine manufacturer must determine the specific information the pilot
needs to control the engine. The engine manufacturer must convey this
information, which includes necessary measurement data, to the
installer. In addition, the FAA notes that the engine manufacturer,
rather than the installer, should know the transient capability needed
by the display to accurately represent the engine behavior. We did
[[Page 48280]]
not change the final rule due to this comment.
In the final rule, we are adding a paragraph (b)(5) that was
originally proposed in the NPRM as paragraph (b)(4). We are doing this
because another final rule, ``Rotorcraft Turbine Engines One-Engine-
Inoperative (OEI) Ratings, Type Certification Standards'' has already
added paragraph (b)(4) to this section.
Engine Ratings and Operating Limitations
The revised Sec. 33.7 requires that the overall limits of accuracy
of the engine control system and the necessary instruments, as defined
in Sec. 33.5(a)(6), be considered when determining engine performance
and operating limitations.
Sino Swearingen, a business jet manufacturer, suggested any
assumptions made relative to the accuracy of installer-supplied
instruments should be stated as assumptions in the installation manual.
The FAA believes this level of detail is excessive for a regulatory
requirement. Therefore, we did not change the final rule due to this
comment.
GE asserted that defining the accuracy limits for the aircraft-
provided instruments should be a task for the airframe manufacturer and
should be part of compliance with part 25 not part 33.
We find the engine manufacturer needs to determine the accuracy
limits for aircraft-provided instruments and provide this information
to the installer. Without this information, it is unclear if it is
critical that a given parameter must be measured and displayed with an
accuracy of 1% or as much as 20%, which is a significant difference to
the installer. We did not change the final rule due to this comment.
None of the above comments to the proposed Sec. 33.7 reflect the
complexity of integration encountered during installation of an engine
on an aircraft. Sections 33.7 and 33.5(a)(6) require that the engine
manufacturer and the installer account for the accuracies and the
documentation of these accuracies for the overall system as installed.
This is to ensure the engine, as installed, can be operated within its
limitations.
Engine Control Systems
We revised the title and contents of Sec. 33.28 to apply to all
types of engine control systems, including hydromechanical and
reciprocating engine controls. Formerly, Sec. 33.28 applied only to
electrical and electronic engine control systems.
Engine Control Systems Validation
The revised Sec. 33.28(b) prescribes requirements for engine
control system validation. Section 33.28(b)(1) requires that applicants
demonstrate their engine control system performs its intended function
in the declared operating conditions, including the environmental
conditions and flight envelope. Section 33.28(b)(1)(ii) also requires
that the engine control system comply with Sec. Sec. 33.51, 33.65, and
33.73, as appropriate, under all likely system inputs and allowable
engine power or thrust demands.
GE found proposed Sec. 33.28(b)(1)(ii) difficult to understand. GE
suggested Sec. 33.28(b)(1)(ii) be revised to read: ``Complies with the
operability requirements of Sec. Sec. 33.51, 33.65 and 33.73, as
appropriate, under all likely system inputs and allowable engine power
or thrust demands, unless it can be demonstrated that failure of the
control function results in a non-dispatchable condition in the
intended application.'' The FAA agrees and has revised the final rule
to read as the commenter suggested.
Control Transitions
We revised Sec. 33.28(c) to clarify the requirements for control
transitions, including crew notification, when fault accommodation is
implemented through alternate modes, channel changes, or changes from
primary to back-up systems.
GE suggested that revised Sec. 33.28(c)(1)(iii) requires the
action of the flight crew be described in the engine operating
instructions if the crew must respond to changes in control modes. GE
claimed the indication of the mode change to the cockpit crew should be
included in the compliance with part 33 but the action required by the
crew should be reserved for compliance with part 25. GE also noted
Sec. 33.28(c)(2) requires the magnitude of a thrust change associated
with a control mode change be described in the engine installation
manual. GE believes it is only necessary for this information to be
included in the engine installation manual if the flight crew is
required to initiate, respond, or be aware of this mode change.
We note the intent of these changes to Sec. 33.28(c) is to ensure
the installer is aware of any engine or engine control operational
differences and the recommended differences in procedures. We have
observed this problem in some previous engine installations. The
inclusion of these actions in the operating instructions draws the
attention of the installer to this condition so that the crew action
must be evaluated--and be found acceptable--under aircraft
certification. This recommended crew action in the engine installation
manual is a guideline for the installer and does not replace
requirements for crew action that are normally included in the aircraft
operations manual. We did not change the final rule due to this
comment.
Engine Control System Failures
Revised Sec. 33.28(d) consists of control system failure
requirements formerly located in Sec. 33.28(c). Section 33.28(d)(1)
addresses integrity requirements, such as Loss of Thrust Control
(LOTC)/Loss of Power Control (LOPC) requirements consistent with the
intended application.
Section 33.28(d)(2) requires the engine control system be designed
and constructed so that in its full-up configuration it is single fault
tolerant, as determined by the Administrator, for electrical or
electronic failures with respect to LOTC/LOPC events. We received no
comments on proposed Sec. 33.28(d)(2).
Sino Swearingen pointed out Sec. 33.28(d)(1) requires the
applicant to design a system that will achieve an LOTC rate compatible
with intended application. However, Sino Swearingen notes that
different aircraft categories (normal, commuter, transport, rotorcraft)
have different levels of safety, associated reliability requirements,
and software verification and validation requirements. Sino Swearingen
asserted the ``intended application'' should, therefore, be specified
in the engine installation instructions.
We do not believe this level of specificity is appropriate for a
regulation, but we will provide appropriate LOTC/LOPC rates and levels
of reliability in the advisory material that accompanies the rule.
System Safety Assessment
The revised Sec. 33.28(e) requires a System Safety Assessment
(SSA) for the engine control system. The SSA must identify faults or
failures that would have harmful effects on the engine.
GE expressed concern that the conditions to be analyzed for
compliance with Sec. 33.28(e) are not clearly related to safety, as
would be implied by the requirement that an SSA be done. The commenter
believes the listed conditions would have a minor effect for a typical
installation.
We note that under the SSA, in complying with Sec. Sec. 33.28 and
33.75, applicants are required to identify faults or failures that
would cause major,
[[Page 48281]]
hazardous and catastrophic engine effects. These types of faults would
require an SSA and a reliability assessment. For example, faults that
can lead to an LOTC and subsequent high thrust or an uncontrolled
overspeed can cause a hazardous engine effect. Faults such as thrust in
the wrong direction or excessive drag (propeller airplanes) or `thrust
failed high and not controllable' can produce a catastrophic aircraft
effect. We find, therefore, that the conditions to be analyzed for an
SSA under Sec. 33.28(e) are clearly related to safety. We did not
change the final rule due to this comment.
GE also claimed the phrase ``an effect on engine operability'' in
Sec. 33.28(e) is not ``bounded.'' The commenter felt this phrase
should be modified to ``an effect on engine operability producing a
surge or stall * * *''
The suggested phrasing is clearer and places the appropriate
boundaries on the statement. We, therefore, revised Sec. 33.28(e) in
the final rule to include the suggested phrase.
GE commented that requiring an SSA addressing every single data
element would impose additional costs to applicants. This final rule
requires an aggregate SSA, not a separate analysis on every single data
element. The SSA must identify faults or failures that would have
harmful effects on the engine. It has been used in the certification
process for the last several years and is already an existing
requirement in Europe. Recent examples include certification of Pratt &
Whitney's PW6000, Rolls-Royce's Model 250, and General Electric GEnx
engines. We find that this manufacturer will not face additional cost
from complying with this requirement because it already meets the
existing European requirements.
Protection Systems
The new Sec. 33.28(f) requires protective functions, such as
overspeed protection systems, that preserve rotor integrity. Section
33.28(f)(2) adds a requirement that the design of electronic overspeed
protection systems include a means for testing at least once per engine
start/stop cycle to establish the availability of the system's
function.
GE commented that the frequency at which the overspeed protection
must be tested should be determined based on the application, the
possible failure modes, and the potential of those failure modes.
We have found the requirement to test overspeed protection at least
once per engine start/stop cycle is appropriate based on safety
considerations. We note that if overspeed protection is not available,
then exposure of an engine to a single failure could result in
uncontrolled overspeed. We made no changes to the final rule due to
this comment. We will, however, clarify in the advisory material that
will accompany this rule that testing the overspeed system depends on a
number of design and architecture factors. For example, the system
architecture may implement a number of protection paths that have to be
individually tested to confirm the system's functionality. Thus, while
the test frequency is one flight cycle, it may take more than one
flight cycle to complete the test of the overspeed protection system.
Aircraft-Supplied Data
The new Sec. 33.28(h) prescribes requirements for single failures
leading to loss, interruption, or corruption of aircraft-supplied data
or data shared between engines. We modified the former fault
accommodation requirement for loss of all aircraft-supplied data to
require detection and accommodation for single failures leading to
loss, interruption, or corruption of aircraft-supplied data. This
accommodation must not result in an unacceptable change in thrust or
power or an unacceptable change in engine operating and starting
characteristics.
GE suggested the phrase ``as part of certification documentation''
be added to Sec. 33.28(h)(2) to avoid confusion since other parts of
this rule define what needs to be documented in the installation
manual. FAA experience with previous engine programs has been that
information on the effects of failures on engine power or thrust,
engine operability, and starting characteristics is needed in the
engine installation instructions to ensure that it is clearly
communicated by the applicant to the installer. As a result of this
comment, we modified the final rule to clarify that this information
must be documented in the engine installation instructions.
Also, Sino Swearingen expressed concern that Sec. 33.28(h)(2) does
not define the unacceptable change in thrust or power or ``allowable
degradation'' in engine operating and starting characteristics. We find
that including this information in the rule would be overly
prescriptive. Unacceptable changes or allowable degradation often
depend on the installation. We find, therefore, that it is more
appropriate to explain unacceptable changes in thrust, power, or engine
operating and starting characteristics in the advisory material that
accompanies this rule. We did not change the final rule due to this
comment.
Aircraft-Supplied Electrical Power
The new Sec. 33.28(i) establishes requirements for the response of
the engine control system to the loss or interruption of electrical
power supplied from the aircraft. Section 33.28(i) applies to all
electrical power supplied to the engine control system, including that
supplied from the aircraft power system and from the dedicated power
source, if required.
GE commented the applicant should be able to identify the
characteristics of any electrical power supplied from the aircraft to
the engine control system for starting and operating the engine in any
document that is part of the certification process rather than in the
engine instructions for installation, as required by the proposed rule.
The FAA has observed a significant number of problems caused by
inadequate communication between the applicant and the installer
regarding aircraft-supplied electrical power. We have found it is
critical that this level of detail be clearly communicated by the
applicant to the installer. The FAA notes also that at the time of
engine certification, it is not always clear who the ultimate
installer(s) will be. Providing these details, therefore, in the engine
instructions for installation will help to ensure the installer has the
needed information. We did not change the final rule due to this
comment.
Programmable Logic Devices
The new Sec. 33.28(m) establishes safety requirements for
programmable logic devices (PLDs) that include application-specific
integrated circuits and programmable gate arrays. The rule requires
that development of the devices and associated encoded logic used in
their design and implementation be at a level equal to the hazard level
of the functions performed via the devices.
EASA suggested that the FAA should clarify the rule to ensure it is
not the FAA's intent to mandate that the type certificate (TC) holder
design and implement PLD logic. EASA argued the TC holder should only
be required to provide evidence that these devices have been developed
using a method, for example DO-254, that is acceptable to the FAA.
We agree with EASA that the proposed language might be
misinterpreted. We, therefore, have revised Sec. 33.28(m) in the final
rule to indicate the applicant must provide evidence that PLDs have
been developed in accordance with a method approved by the FAA.
[[Page 48282]]
Instrument Connection
We revised Sec. 33.29 by adding new paragraphs (e) through (h).
The new Sec. 33.29(e) requires that applicants provide instrumentation
necessary to ensure engine operation in compliance with the engine
operating limitations. The new Sec. 33.29(f) requires that applicants
provide a means to minimize the possibility of incorrect fitting of
instruments, sensors and connectors. The new Sec. 33.29(g) reduces the
probability of faults propagating from the instrumentation and
monitoring functions to the control functions, or vice versa, by
prescribing that the probability of propagation of faults be consistent
with the criticality of the function performed. The new Sec. 33.29(h)
adds requirements for instrumentation that enables the flight crew to
monitor the functioning of the turbine case cooling system.
Sino Swearingen agreed it is appropriate in Sec. 33.29(f) to
specify that the engine design should include means to prevent improper
installation or ``fit'' of instruments, sensors and connectors. Sino
Swearingen commented, however, that it is virtually impossible to
consider the effects of multiple possible incorrect assembly and
installation scenarios within the engine control system's SSA
especially since it must consider airplane-installed instruments to be
comprehensive.
The FAA notes the intent of this rule is to achieve an engine
design where the fit of the installation will prevent an accidental
incorrect assembly. When incorrect fit cannot be ensured, the SSA needs
to address the effects of the incorrect assembly. The FAA is not
intending to include aircraft-installed instruments in this assessment.
We did not change the final rule due to this comment.
Engine Overtemperature Test
We did not propose changes to this section in the NPRM. We are,
however, changing a reference in this section in the final rule from
Sec. 33.67(d) to Sec. 33.28(k) because this rule eliminates Sec.
33.67(d) and moves its contents to Sec. 33.28(k). We did not make any
other changes to Sec. 33.88 by this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined there is
no current or new requirement for information collection associated
with this amendment.
An agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information,
nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it
displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
control number.
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. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these 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 each Federal agency
propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 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, this Trade
Act also requires agencies to consider international standards and,
where appropriate, use them as 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 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.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect, and the basis for it, 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 final rule.
Presently, engine manufacturers must satisfy both United States and
European requirements to certify and market part 33 engines in both the
United States and in Europe. Meeting two sets of certification
requirements raises the cost of developing a new engine often with no
increase in safety. In the interest of fostering international trade,
lowering the cost of engine development, and making the certification
process more efficient, the FAA, EASA, and manufacturers have worked to
create to the maximum extent possible a single set of certification
requirements accepted in both the United States and Europe. These
efforts are referred to as harmonization.
This final rule codifies current industry practices and harmonizes
FAA requirements for aircraft engine control systems with similar
requirements recently adopted by EASA, thereby simplifying
airworthiness approvals for import and export. Similar international
requirements reduce duplicative testing which will reduce certification
costs. The FAA has not attempted to quantify the cost savings that may
accrue due to this specific rule, beyond noting that while they may be
minimal they contribute to harmonization savings. In addition, a
potential for increased safety lies in having clearer and more explicit
regulations. The agency concludes that there is consensus among
potentially impacted manufacturers that savings will result, and
further analysis is not required. The benefits of this final rule
justify the costs and the existing level of safety will be preserved.
Economic Summary
The FAA has determined that the benefits of this final rule justify
the costs. It 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.
Final 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,
[[Page 48283]]
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.
During the comment period, one individual questioned our
determination that the rule would not affect a substantial number of
small entities. In the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination, we
found there would not be a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities and used the broadest category, ``more than
just a few,'' in determining if a substantial number of small entities
were impacted. There were no other comments on the potential effect on
small businesses.
Although there are engine manufacturers who qualify as small
businesses based on Small Business Administration Size Standards, this
rule reduces cost. Our final regulatory flexibility determination is
that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, as the Acting FAA Administrator, I certify that this
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
International 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.
This final rule considers and incorporates an international
standard as the basis of an FAA regulation. Thus this final rule
complies with The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 and does not create
unnecessary obstacles to international trade.
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
(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 level equivalent of $100 million in CY 1995,
adjusted for inflation to CY 2007 levels by the Consumer Price Index
for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) as published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, is $136.1 million.
This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements
of Title II do not apply.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We have determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or
the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government, and, therefore, does 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 rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312d and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use
The FAA has analyzed this final rule 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.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our 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.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://docketsinfo.dot.gov.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a
question regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA
official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more
about SBREFA on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_
policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Life-limited parts, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
The Amendment
0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
[[Page 48284]]
PART 33--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES
0
1. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704
0
2. Amend Sec. 33.5 by adding new paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6),
and (b)(5), to read as follows:
Sec. 33.5 Instruction manual for installing and operating the engine.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(4) A definition of the physical and functional interfaces with the
aircraft and aircraft equipment, including the propeller when
applicable.
(5) Where an engine system relies on components that are not part
of the engine type design, the interface conditions and reliability
requirements for those components upon which engine type certification
is based must be specified in the engine installation instructions
directly or by reference to appropriate documentation.
(6) A list of the instruments necessary for control of the engine,
including the overall limits of accuracy and transient response
required of such instruments for control of the operation of the
engine, must also be stated so that the suitability of the instruments
as installed may be assessed.
(b) * * *
(5) A description of the primary and all alternate modes, and any
back-up system, together with any associated limitations, of the engine
control system and its interface with the aircraft systems, including
the propeller when applicable.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 33.7 by adding new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 33.7 Engine ratings and operating limitations.
* * * * *
(d) In determining the engine performance and operating
limitations, the overall limits of accuracy of the engine control
system and of the necessary instrumentation as defined in Sec.
33.5(a)(6) must be taken into account.
0
4. Amend Sec. 33.27 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 33.27 Turbine, compressor, fan, and turbosupercharger rotors.
* * * * *
(b) The design and functioning of engine systems, instruments, and
other methods, not covered under Sec. 33.28 must give reasonable
assurance that those engine operating limitations that affect turbine,
compressor, fan, and turbosupercharger rotor structural integrity will
not be exceeded in service.
* * * * *
0
5. Revise Sec. 33.28 to read as follows:
Sec. 33.28 Engine control systems.
(a) Applicability. These requirements are applicable to any system
or device that is part of engine type design, that controls, limits, or
monitors engine operation, and is necessary for the continued
airworthiness of the engine.
(b) Validation.
(1) Functional aspects. The applicant must substantiate by tests,
analysis, or a combination thereof, that the engine control system
performs the intended functions in a manner which:
(i) Enables selected values of relevant control parameters to be
maintained and the engine kept within the approved operating limits
over changing atmospheric conditions in the declared flight envelope;
(ii) Complies with the operability requirements of Sec. Sec.
33.51, 33.65 and 33.73, as appropriate, under all likely system inputs
and allowable engine power or thrust demands, unless it can be
demonstrated that failure of the control function results in a non-
dispatchable condition in the intended application;
(iii) Allows modulation of engine power or thrust with adequate
sensitivity over the declared range of engine operating conditions; and
(iv) Does not create unacceptable power or thrust oscillations.
(2) Environmental limits. The applicant must demonstrate, when
complying with Sec. Sec. 33.53 or 33.91, that the engine control
system functionality will not be adversely affected by declared
environmental conditions, including electromagnetic interference (EMI),
High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF), and lightning. The limits to
which the system has been qualified must be documented in the engine
installation instructions.
(c) Control transitions.
(1) The applicant must demonstrate that, when fault or failure
results in a change from one control mode to another, from one channel
to another, or from the primary system to the back-up system, the
change occurs so that:
(i) The engine does not exceed any of its operating limitations;
(ii) The engine does not surge, stall, or experience unacceptable
thrust or power changes or oscillations or other unacceptable
characteristics; and
(iii) There is a means to alert the flight crew if the crew is
required to initiate, respond to, or be aware of the control mode
change. The means to alert the crew must be described in the engine
installation instructions, and the crew action must be described in the
engine operating instructions;
(2) The magnitude of any change in thrust or power and the
associated transition time must be identified and described in the
engine installation instructions and the engine operating instructions.
(d) Engine control system failures. The applicant must design and
construct the engine control system so that:
(1) The rate for Loss of Thrust (or Power) Control (LOTC/LOPC)
events, consistent with the safety objective associated with the
intended application can be achieved;
(2) In the full-up configuration, the system is single fault
tolerant, as determined by the Administrator, for electrical or
electronic failures with respect to LOTC/LOPC events;
(3) Single failures of engine control system components do not
result in a hazardous engine effect; and
(4) Foreseeable failures or malfunctions leading to local events in
the intended aircraft installation, such as fire, overheat, or failures
leading to damage to engine control system components, do not result in
a hazardous engine effect due to engine control system failures or
malfunctions.
(e) System safety assessment. When complying with this section and
Sec. 33.75, the applicant must complete a System Safety Assessment for
the engine control system. This assessment must identify faults or
failures that result in a change in thrust or power, transmission of
erroneous data, or an effect on engine operability producing a surge or
stall together with the predicted frequency of occurrence of these
faults or failures.
(f) Protection systems.
(1) The design and functioning of engine control devices and
systems, together with engine instruments and operating and maintenance
instructions, must provide reasonable assurance that those engine
operating limitations that affect turbine, compressor, fan, and
turbosupercharger rotor structural integrity will not be exceeded in
service.
(2) When electronic overspeed protection systems are provided, the
design must include a means for testing, at least once per engine
start/stop cycle, to establish the availability of the protection
function. The means must be such that a complete test of the system can
be achieved in the minimum number of cycles. If the test is not fully
automatic, the requirement for a manual test must be contained in the
engine instructions for operation.
[[Page 48285]]
(3) When overspeed protection is provided through hydromechanical
or mechanical means, the applicant must demonstrate by test or other
acceptable means that the overspeed function remains available between
inspection and maintenance periods.
(g) Software. The applicant must design, implement, and verify all
associated software to minimize the existence of errors by using a
method, approved by the FAA, consistent with the criticality of the
performed functions.
(h) Aircraft-supplied data. Single failures leading to loss,
interruption or corruption of aircraft-supplied data (other than thrust
or power command signals from the aircraft), or data shared between
engines must:
(1) Not result in a hazardous engine effect for any engine; and
(2) Be detected and accommodated. The accommodation strategy must
not result in an unacceptable change in thrust or power or an
unacceptable change in engine operating and starting characteristics.
The applicant must evaluate and document in the engine installation
instructions the effects of these failures on engine power or thrust,
engine operability, and starting characteristics throughout the flight
envelope.
(i) Aircraft-supplied electrical power.
(1) The applicant must design the engine control system so that the
loss, malfunction, or interruption of electrical power supplied from
the aircraft to the engine control system will not result in any of the
following:
(i) A hazardous engine effect, or
(ii) The unacceptable transmission of erroneous data.
(2) When an engine dedicated power source is required for
compliance with paragraph (i)(1) of this section, its capacity should
provide sufficient margin to account for engine operation below idle
where the engine control system is designed and expected to recover
engine operation automatically.
(3) The applicant must identify and declare the need for, and the
characteristics of, any electrical power supplied from the aircraft to
the engine control system for starting and operating the engine,
including transient and steady state voltage limits, in the engine
instructions for installation.
(4) Low voltage transients outside the power supply voltage
limitations declared in paragraph (i)(3) of this section must meet the
requirements of paragraph (i)(1) of this section. The engine control
system must be capable of resuming normal operation when aircraft-
supplied power returns to within the declared limits.
(j) Air pressure signal. The applicant must consider the effects of
blockage or leakage of the signal lines on the engine control system as
part of the System Safety Assessment of paragraph (e) of this section
and must adopt the appropriate design precautions.
(k) Automatic availability and control of engine power for 30-
second OEI rating. Rotorcraft engines having a 30-second OEI rating
must incorporate a means, or a provision for a means, for automatic
availability and automatic control of the 30-second OEI power within
its operating limitations.
(l) Engine shut down means. Means must be provided for shutting
down the engine rapidly.
(m) Programmable logic devices. The development of programmable
logic devices using digital logic or other complex design technologies
must provide a level of assurance for the encoded logic commensurate
with the hazard associated with the failure or malfunction of the
systems in which the devices are located. The applicant must provide
evidence that the development of these devices has been done by using a
method, approved by the FAA, that is consistent with the criticality of
the performed function.
0
6. Amend Sec. 33.29 by adding new paragraphs (e) through (h) to read
as follows:
Sec. 33.29 Instrument connection.
* * * * *
(e) The applicant must make provision for the installation of
instrumentation necessary to ensure operation in compliance with engine
operating limitations. Where, in presenting the safety analysis, or
complying with any other requirement, dependence is placed on
instrumentation that is not otherwise mandatory in the assumed aircraft
installation, then the applicant must specify this instrumentation in
the engine installation instructions and declare it mandatory in the
engine approval documentation.
(f) As part of the System Safety Assessment of Sec. 33.28(e), the
applicant must assess the possibility and subsequent effect of
incorrect fit of instruments, sensors, or connectors. Where necessary,
the applicant must take design precautions to prevent incorrect
configuration of the system.
(g) The sensors, together with associated wiring and signal
conditioning, must be segregated, electrically and physically, to the
extent necessary to ensure that the probability of a fault propagating
from instrumentation and monitoring functions to control functions, or
vice versa, is consistent with the failure effect of the fault.
(h) The applicant must provide instrumentation enabling the flight
crew to monitor the functioning of the turbine cooling system unless
appropriate inspections are published in the relevant manuals and
evidence shows that:
(1) Other existing instrumentation provides adequate warning of
failure or impending failure;
(2) Failure of the cooling system would not lead to hazardous
engine effects before detection; or
(3) The probability of failure of the cooling system is extremely
remote.
0
7. Amend Sec. 33.53 by revising the section heading and paragraph (a)
to read as follows:
Sec. 33.53 Engine system and component tests.
(a) For those systems and components that cannot be adequately
substantiated in accordance with endurance testing of Sec. 33.49, the
applicant must conduct additional tests to demonstrate that systems or
components are able to perform the intended functions in all declared
environmental and operating conditions.
* * * * *
Sec. 33.67 [Amended]
0
8. Remove paragraph (d) from Sec. 33.67.
0
9. Amend Sec. 33.88 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 33.88 Engine overtemperature test.
* * * * *
(b) In addition to the test requirements in paragraph (a) of this
section, each engine for which 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings
are desired, that incorporates a means for automatic temperature
control within its operating limitations in accordance with Sec.
33.28(k), must run for a period of 4 minutes at the maximum power-on
rpm with the gas temperature at least 35 [deg]F (19 [deg]C) higher than
the maximum operating limit at 30-second OEI rating. Following this
run, the turbine assembly may exhibit distress beyond the limits for an
overtemperature condition provided the engine is shown by analysis or
test, as found necessary by the FAA, to maintain the integrity of the
turbine assembly.
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 33.91 by revising the section heading and paragraph (a)
to read as follows:
[[Page 48286]]
Sec. 33.91 Engine system and component tests.
(a) For those systems or components that cannot be adequately
substantiated in accordance with endurance testing of Sec. 33.87, the
applicant must conduct additional tests to demonstrate that the systems
or components are able to perform the intended functions in all
declared environmental and operating conditions.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 2, 2008.
Robert A. Sturgell,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-19048 Filed 8-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P