[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5770-5775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-950]



[[Page 5769]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 33



Airworthiness Standards; Aircraft Engine Standards for Engine Life-
Limited Parts; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 5770]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 33

[Docket No. FAA-2006-23732; Notice No. 06-03]
RIN 2120-AI72


Airworthiness Standards; Aircraft Engine Standards for Engine 
Life-Limited Parts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to amend the certification standards for 
original and amended type certificates for aircraft engines by 
modifying the standards for engine life-limited parts. The proposed 
rule would establish new and uniform standards for the design and 
testing of life-limited parts for aircraft engines certificated by the 
FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and the Joint Aviation 
Authorities (JAA). Additionally, the proposal would add new standards 
for the design of reciprocating engine turbocharger rotors. The 
proposed rule would harmonize part 33 requirements with EASA and JAA 
requirements.

DATES: Send your comments on or before May 3, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments [identified by Docket Number FAA-2006-
23732] 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, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 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 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 Room PL-401 on the plaza level of 
the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Mouzakis, Engine and Propeller 
Directorate Standards Staff, ANE-110, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 
Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, New England Region, 12 New England 
Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299; telephone (781) 
238-7114; fax (781) 238-7199, e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in rulemaking by 
submitting written data, views, or arguments on this proposed rule. We 
also invite comments relating to the environmental, energy, federalism, 
or economic impact that might result from adopting the proposals in 
this notice. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of 
the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and 
include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written 
comments.
    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.
    Privacy Act: Using the search function of our docket Web site, 
anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, 
including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing 
the comment 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 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.
    Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we 
receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider 
comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring 
expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments 
we receive.
    If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this 
proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard 
on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the 
postcard and mail it to you.

Proprietary or Confidential Business Information

    Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be 
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this 
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the 
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send 
the information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD 
ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information 
filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a 
separate file to which the public does not have access, and place a 
note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to 
examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request 
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a 
request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

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 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 docket number, notice number, or amendment number 
of this rulemaking.

[[Page 5771]]

Executive Summary

    The FAA, along with the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), 
which represents turbine engine manufacturers, conducted a review of 
technologies available to reduce uncontained rotor events in response 
to the crash of a DC-10 airplane at Sioux City, Iowa, on July 19, 1989. 
The DC-10 crash was caused by the presence of a material anomaly in the 
disk titanium forging. Additional accidents, along with industry 
studies that show a link between manufacturing induced anomalies and 
rotor cracking, demonstrated the need for damage tolerance requirements 
and closer cooperation between Engineering and Manufacturing elements 
of engine manufacturers.
    Anomalies of any type are not addressed in determining the proposed 
life of a rotor, although experience with gas turbine engines has shown 
that these anomalies can degrade the integrity of high-energy rotors. 
This proposed rule would supplement existing methodologies for 
determining proposed life by adding a requirement for a damage 
tolerance assessment of life-limited parts. The requirement would 
provide an additional margin of safety and reduce the number of life-
limited parts failure due to material, manufacturing, and service 
induced anomalies. The proposed rule would establish new uniform 
standards for the design and testing of engine life-limited parts for 
aircraft engines (Sec.  33.70) and for the design and construction of 
reciprocating engine turbocharger rotors (Sec.  33.34). The proposed 
rule would also strengthen cooperation between Engineering, 
Manufacturing, and Service elements of turbine engine manufacturers by 
requiring that the Manufacturing and Service plans be consistent with 
the Engineering plan. Finally, this action would harmonize FAA part 33 
requirements with the EASA and JAA requirements for aircraft engines 
(Sec.  33.70).

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. The Joint Aviation Requirements-
Engines (JAR-E) and the Certification Specifications-Engines (CS-E) 
prescribe corresponding airworthiness standards for the certification 
of aircraft engines by the JAA and EASA respectively. CS-E and JAR-E 
airworthiness standards are the same. While part 33, JAR-E, and CS-E 
are similar, they differ in several respects. For applicants seeking 
certification under both part 33 and CS-E or JAR-E, these differences 
result in additional costs and delays in the time required for 
certification.
    In August 1989, the FAA Engine and Propeller Directorate met with 
the JAA, the AIA, and the European Association of Aerospace Industries 
(AECMA). The purpose of the meeting was to establish a philosophy, 
guidelines, and a working relationship for the resolution of issues 
identified as needing harmonization, including the identification of 
the need for new standards. All parties agreed to work in a partnership 
to address the harmonization of United States and European engine 
requirements. This partnership was later expanded to include Transport 
Canada, the airworthiness authority of Canada.
    As part of these harmonization efforts, the FAA assigned the task 
of evaluating the current standards for Sec.  33.14 as they pertain to 
the current rotor life methodology to the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee (ARAC) in November 2001. Notice of the task was published in 
the Federal Register on November 7, 2001 (66 FR 56367). Details are in 
the notice that we cite here.
    The current rotor life methodology (safe life method) typically 
determines the approved life based on the minimum number of cycles 
required to initiate a crack approximately .030 inches in length. The 
safe life methodology is founded on the assumption that rotor 
components are anomaly-free (nominal condition). Consequently, the 
methodology does not explicitly address the occurrence of anomalies, 
although some level of tolerance to anomalies is implicitly built in by 
using design margins, and incorporating factory and field inspections. 
Under nominal conditions, the safe life method provides a structured 
process for the design and life management of high-energy rotors, which 
results in the assurance of structural integrity throughout the life of 
the rotor.
    Service experience with gas turbine engines has demonstrated, 
however, that material, manufacturing, and service-induced anomalies 
occur and that these anomalies can degrade the structural integrity of 
high-energy rotors. Undetectable material processing, manufacturing and 
service-induced anomalies represent a departure from the assumed 
nominal conditions. The proposed rule would supplement the existing 
methodologies with a damage tolerance requirement to provide an added 
margin for material, manufacturing and service-induced anomalies. The 
intent of the proposed rule is to remove rotor life-limited parts from 
service when they reach the life limits based on the safe life 
methodology. Rotor components would not be allowed to remain in service 
with cracks.
    In 1990, the FAA requested that the Society of Automotive Engineers 
(SAE) reconvene the Committee on Uncontained Turbine Engine Rotor 
Events to determine the number and the root cause of uncontained rotor 
events. The statistics pertaining to uncontained rotor events are 
reported in the SAE Committee Report Nos. AIR 1537, AIR 4003, and SP-
1270. While the committee did not identify any adverse trends, it 
expressed concern that the projected five percent increase in airline 
passengers each year could lead to a noticeable increase in the number 
of aircraft accidents from uncontained rotor events.
    As a result of the accident at Sioux City in 1989, which was caused 
by a material (hard alpha) anomaly in a disk titanium forging, the FAA 
requested that turbine engine manufacturers, through the AIA, review 
available technologies to determine if a damage tolerance requirement 
could be introduced which, if appropriately implemented, would reduce 
the occurrence of uncontained rotor events. In response to our request, 
the AIA Rotor Integrity Subcommittee, an industry working group, 
concluded that the technology existed to address anomalous conditions, 
although additional development and research would be required. The FAA 
and AIA also initiated the Rotor Manufacturing (RoMan) project to 
develop a ``Best Manufacturing Practices'' document to address 
manufacturing-induced anomalies in high energy rotating components.
    Manufacturing induced anomalies have caused other accidents. The 
crash of an MD-88 aircraft in Pensacola, Florida, in July 1996, was the 
result of a fan disk rupture. The cause of the fan disk rupture was 
traced to a severely worked material surface layer in one tie rod bolt 
hole, introduced during the machining process. Notably, industry data 
shows that post-forging manufacturing induced anomalies have caused 
about 25 percent of recent rotor cracking and failure events. SAE 
Report SP-1270 contains data indicating that manufacturing and material 
causes account for 5.6 percent of category 1-4 events \1\ and 4 percent 
of category 3 & 4

[[Page 5772]]

events, reinforcing the need to conduct damage tolerance assessments 
and for stronger links between Engineering and Manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Category 1: Nacelle damage only; Category 2: Minor aircraft 
damage; Category 3: Significant aircraft damage or minor injuries; 
Category 4: Crash landing, hull loss, critical injuries or 
fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Discussion of the Proposals

    Rotor disk fracture is the major contributor to propulsion risk 
(risk of engine failure). The primary causes of turbine engine rotor 
disk failures are material, manufacturing, and operationally induced 
anomalies (for example, improper repair, fretting, or corrosion). While 
compliance with the current requirements has resulted in significant 
improvements in rotor uncontained failure rates, incorporation of 
recently developed technologies and methodologies should provide 
further improvement.
    Experience with several types of static parts has demonstrated that 
fatigue failures have the potential to result in hazardous effects. In 
the context of this proposed rule, hazardous engine effects are the 
conditions listed in Sec.  33.75. For example, some high-pressure 
casing fatigue failures have resulted in uncontained high-energy 
fragments and fire. In addition, the operating pressures of engines 
continue to rise, which also increases the potential for hazardous 
effects. In some instances, the Engine Certification Office has used 
``issue papers'' to direct engine manufacturers to evaluate the fatigue 
capabilities of engine static structures. These ``issue papers'' are 
based on Sec.  33.19(a), which requires the engine to be designed and 
constructed to minimize the development of an unsafe condition between 
overhaul periods. Despite this action, engine case ruptures continue to 
contribute to propulsion risk. Based on the CAAM (Continued 
Airworthiness Assessment Methodologies) data, case ruptures is the 
tenth leading cause of level 3 or 4 events and represents a significant 
hazard from engines installed on part 25 airplanes.
    We are introducing the term ``engine life-limited parts'' in this 
proposed rule to cover all parts, rotating and static, that rely on 
meeting prescribed integrity requirements to avoid their primary 
failure which is likely to result in a hazardous engine effect. The 
current rules for control of engine life-limited parts are deficient in 
a number of areas. They do not contain:
     A concise and coherent rule for the overall control of 
life-limited rotating parts in terms of design, manufacture and 
service/maintenance;
     Fatigue life and integrity requirements for static parts 
that meet the definition of an engine life-limited part; or
     Requirements to account for the potential degrading 
effects of anomalous materials and manufacturing or usage-induced 
anomalies.
    As mentioned earlier, the FAA initiated action to harmonize JAR-E 
515 with Sec.  33.14 to eliminate differences and to improve design 
requirements (for example, the introduction of damage tolerance). 
Presently, the part 33 and JAR-E requirements for ``engine life-limited 
parts'' differ in the following aspects:
     Part 33 does not require that engineering assumptions be 
linked to the manufacturing processes used to produce the part, and
     Part 33 does not require that engineering assumptions be 
linked to the maintenance processes used in service, and
     Part 33 does not require life limits to be maintained 
during service operation.
    The proposed rule establishes explicit structural integrity 
requirements for engine life-limited parts, adopting the general intent 
of JAR-E 515 for both static and rotating engine life-limited parts.
    The FAA uses the term ``engine life-limited parts'' while the JAR 
and EASA rules use the term ``engine critical parts.'' The FAA has 
decided against using ``engine critical parts'' because a substantial 
number of FAA documents that deal with PMA (Parts Manufacturer 
Approval) and repair use the term ``critical.'' ``Critical'' in the 
context of existing FAA documents has a broader definition that can 
apply to items other than parts, such as processes, appliances, and 
characteristics.
    The FAA has used industry experience to identify issues that need 
to be addressed in this rulemaking. The new harmonized proposal defines 
engine life-limited parts as structural parts whose primary failure is 
likely to result in a hazardous engine effect. As noted above, current 
regulations do not contain fatigue life and integrity requirements for 
engine static parts, yet some of these parts meet the definition of an 
engine life-limited part. The new harmonized proposal addresses all 
parts, rotating or static, that meet the definition of an engine life-
limited part. The integrity of engine life-limited parts will be 
established by linking the Engineering, Manufacturing and Service 
Management Plans.
    The current requirement for rotors primarily addresses low-cycle 
fatigue (LCF), with life limits based on crack initiation using a 
procedure approved by the FAA. In addition, the applicant is expected 
to conduct sufficient analysis and testing to evaluate the effects of 
elevated temperatures and hold times as well as the interaction with 
other failure mechanisms (for example, high cycle fatigue, creep, and 
cold-dwell). The new harmonized proposal, through the Engineering Plan, 
would continue to address LCF in the same manner as the existing rule, 
but would also introduce new requirements to conduct damage tolerance 
assessments to limit the potential for failure from material, 
manufacturing and service-induced anomalies. The proposed rule requires 
FAA approval of the procedures used to establish life limits and 
address anomalies. In addition, applicants must identify and control 
attributes that are critical to the integrity of the part. In the 
context of this proposed rule, attributes are inherent characteristics 
of the finished part that determine its capability.
    The Manufacturing and Service Management Plans would be developed 
to ensure that the attributes identified within the Engineering Plan 
are consistently manufactured and maintained throughout the lifetime of 
the part.
    The general methods and approaches that are used to establish the 
approved lives for static engine life-limited parts are similar to 
those used for engine life-limited rotating parts. The life limits of 
engine life-limited rotating parts are based on the initiation of a 
crack. However, for some static parts, such as high-pressure casings, 
the approved life may use a portion of the residual crack growth life 
in addition to the crack initiation life. The use of residual crack 
growth life specifically does not apply to rotor components. If the 
approved life includes reliance on the detection of cracks prior to 
reaching the life limit, the reliability of the crack detection 
technique should be considered. Any dependence upon crack detection 
should result in mandatory inspection and be part of the Service 
Management Plan and included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section 
of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
    Some static part construction techniques may require the use of 
damage tolerance techniques to determine the life limit. For life-
limited static parts that utilize construction techniques that 
inherently contain anomalies, such as welds and castings, the anomalies 
should be considered as part of the methodology to establish the 
approved life. Fracture mechanics is a common method for such 
assessments.
    To ensure a complete understanding of the proposed rule, the 
following definitions are provided, but are not part of the rule 
itself:

[[Page 5773]]

     Primary failure: Failure of a part that is not the result 
of a prior failure of another part or system.
     Failure: Separation of the part into two or more pieces 
such that the part is no longer whole or complete.
     Likely to result: Given that the part has failed 
regardless of its probability of occurrence, what are the possible 
effects on the engine and aircraft?
     Anomalies: The presence of abnormal material forms or 
physical shapes that are not permitted by the engineering 
specifications. Nicks, dings, and dents are examples of physically 
shaped anomalies. Hard Alpha in titanium is an example of a material 
anomaly. Cracks that are the result of fatigue are not considered an 
anomaly because they are the result of normal service usage.
    The FAA considers it necessary to completely replace the existing 
Sec.  33.14 ``Start-stop cyclic stress (low-cycle-fatigue)'' with 
proposed Sec.  33.70. Section 33.14 is in ``Subpart B--Design and 
Construction; General'' of part 33 and is applicable to a broad range 
of products including reciprocating engines, turbo superchargers, and 
turbine aircraft engines. The FAA developed the new proposed rule, 
Sec.  33.70, based on principles and experience applicable to turbine 
aircraft engines, and it is not considered applicable to other 
products.
    Removal of Sec.  33.14 from Subpart B eliminates turbocharger rotor 
life requirements from part 33. Showing compliance to Sec.  33.14 has 
been accomplished concurrently with Sec.  23.909(c) by performance of a 
turbocharger rotor containment test. This shows that failure of these 
rotors does not produce a hazard to the aircraft, thus satisfying the 
requirements of Sec.  33.14 without the need to calculate the LCF life. 
The FAA proposes a new Sec.  33.34 to replace the turbocharger rotor 
life requirements removed by elimination of Sec.  33.14.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

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 life-limited parts.

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 current 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. The FAA has 
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and 
has identified no differences with these proposed regulations.

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' dated 
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51736), directs the FAA to assess both the 
costs and the benefits of a regulatory change. We are not allowed to 
propose or adopt a regulation unless we make a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the costs. Our 
assessment of this rulemaking indicates that its economic impact is 
minimal because U.S. turbine engine manufacturers are already 
manufacturing turbine engines according to European joint aviation 
requirements that are equivalent to these proposed requirements. 
Because the costs and benefits of this action do not make it a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in the Order, we have not 
prepared a ``regulatory evaluation,'' which is the written cost/benefit 
analysis ordinarily required for all rulemaking under the DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. We do not need to do a full 
evaluation where the economic impact of a rule is minimal.

Economic Assessment, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact 
Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Proposed 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 requires agencies 
to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. 
Third, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 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 
requires Federal agencies to consider international standards and, 
where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. Fourth, 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires Federal 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 (adjusted 
annually for inflation) in any one year.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this 
proposed rule (1) has benefits that justify its costs, 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; (2) would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities; (3) would reduce 
barriers to international trade; and (4) does not impose an unfunded 
mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. 
These analyses, available in the docket, are summarized below.
    Presently, U.S. turbine engine manufacturers must satisfy the 
certification requirements of both the FAA and the European joint 
aviation requirements to market turbine engines in both the United 
States and Europe. Meeting two different sets of certification 
requirements can increase the costs of developing turbine engines often 
with no associated safety benefits. In the interests of fostering 
international trade, lowering the cost of aircraft and/or engine 
development, and making the certification process more efficient, the 
FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency, and equipment manufacturers 
have been working to create, to the maximum extent possible, a uniform 
set of certification requirements accepted in both the United States 
and Europe. This endeavor is referred to as ``harmonization.''
    This proposal replaces Sec.  33.14 with new Sec. Sec.  33.34 and 
33.70 to reflect the ``more stringent'' requirements in JAR-

[[Page 5774]]

E 515 or CS-E 515, ``Engine Critical Parts.'' The FAA has concluded 
(for the reasons previously discussed in the preamble) that the 
adoption of these JAR-E or CS-E requirements into the federal aviation 
regulations is the most efficient way to harmonize the separately 
derived requirements. In so doing, the existing level of safety is 
preserved.
    The FAA estimates that there would be minimal (if any) costs 
associated with this proposed rule. The major turbine engine 
manufacturers were members of the ARAC working group that developed the 
proposed requirements. These manufacturers indicate that all such 
engines sold overseas are currently certificated under JAR-E 515 or CS-
E 515; thus, U.S. engine manufacturers would incur no additional costs 
resulting from this proposal.
    There are, however, potential safety benefits in codifying what is 
now ``industry practice'' into a permanent U.S. standard. This action 
assures that any current or future U.S. turbine engine manufacturer 
choosing not to market its engines overseas would nevertheless be 
required to meet ``new'' (in federal aviation regulations) more 
stringent standards. As noted earlier, fatigue failures have the 
potential to result in hazardous effects (some high-pressure casing 
fatigue failures have led to uncontained high-energy fragments and 
fire), with potential for loss of lives and/or serious injuries.
    In addition, this proposed rule fosters international trade as it 
accepts international standards as the basis for U.S. regulation(s). 
With minimal costs and potential benefits, the FAA finds this proposal 
to be clearly cost-beneficial.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 directs the FAA to fit 
regulatory requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, 
and governmental jurisdictions subject to the regulation. We are 
required to determine whether a proposed or final action will have a 
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities'' as they are defined in the Act. If we find that the action 
will have a significant impact, we must do a regulatory flexibility 
analysis.
    None of the turbine engine manufacturers in the ARAC Working Group 
who helped develop the proposed requirements are small entities (they 
each have 1,500 or more employees). Consequently, we contacted another 
turbine engine manufacturer that is not an ARAC member but is a small 
entity. That manufacturer affirmed that meeting the proposed 
requirements would result in minimal incremental costs. We found that 
there are no other small entity turbine engine manufacturers who would 
be affected by this proposal. Therefore, we certify that this proposed 
action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 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 effect 
of this proposed rulemaking and determined that it will reduce trade 
barriers by reducing differences between the U.S. and European 
regulations.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) is intended, 
among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal 
mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act 
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) 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 $120.7 million in lieu of $100 
million.
    This NPRM does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of 
Title II of the Act, therefore, do not apply.

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 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 that this proposed rule 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.

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 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.


Sec.  33.14  [Removed]

    2. Remove Sec.  33.14.
    3. Add new Sec.  33.34 to read as follows:


Sec.  33.34  Turbocharger rotors.

    Each turbocharger case must be designed and constructed to be able 
to contain fragments of a compressor or turbine that fails at the 
highest speed that is obtainable with normal speed control devices 
inoperative.
    4. Add new Sec.  33.70 to read as follows:


Sec.  33.70  Engine life-limited parts.

    Engine life-limited parts are those parts whose primary failure is 
likely to result in a hazardous engine effect. Typically engine life-
limited parts may include disks, spacers, hubs, shafts, high-pressure 
casings, and non-redundant mount components. For the purposes of this 
section, a hazardous

[[Page 5775]]

engine effect is any of the conditions listed in Sec.  33.75 of this 
part. The applicant will establish the integrity of each engine life-
limited part by:
    (a) An Engineering Plan, the execution of which establishes and 
maintains that the combinations of loads, material properties, 
environmental influences and operating conditions, including the 
effects of parts influencing these parameters, are sufficiently well 
known or predictable, by validated analysis, test or service 
experience, to allow engine life-limited parts to be withdrawn from 
service at an approved life before hazardous engine effects can occur. 
Applicants must perform appropriate Damage Tolerance assessments to 
address the potential for failure from material, manufacturing, and 
service-induced anomalies within the approved life of the part. The FAA 
must approve the procedures by which the approved life is determined. 
Applicants must publish a list of the life-limited engine parts and the 
approved life for each part in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of 
the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness as required by Sec.  33.4 
of this part.
    (b) A Manufacturing Plan that identifies the specific manufacturing 
constraints necessary to consistently produce engine life-limited parts 
with the attributes required by the Engineering Plan.
    (c) A Service Management Plan that defines in-service processes for 
maintenance and repair of engine life-limited parts that will maintain 
attributes consistent with those required by the Engineering Plan. 
These processes will become part of the Instructions for Continued 
Airworthiness.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 26, 2006.
Dorenda D. Baker,
Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 06-950 Filed 2-1-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P