[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 18, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40675-40679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-11372]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 18, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 40675]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 33

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25376; Notice No. 06-10]
RIN 2120-AI74


Airworthiness Standards: Safety Analysis

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to amend the safety analysis type 
certification standard for turbine aircraft engines. This proposal 
harmonizes the FAA's type certification standard for safety analysis 
with the corresponding standards of the Joint Aviation Authorities 
(JAA) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The proposed rule 
would establish a nearly uniform safety analysis standard for turbine 
aircraft engines certified in the United States under Part 33 of Title 
14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 33) and in European 
countries under Joint Aviation Requirements-Engines (JAR-E) and 
Certification Specifications-Engines (CS-E), thereby simplifying 
airworthiness approvals for import and export.

DATES: Send your comments on or before October 16, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket No. FAA-2006-
25376, using any of the following methods:
     DOT Docket Web site: Got 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 20590-0001.
     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 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 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: Ann Azevedo, Chief Scientist & 
Technical Advisor, Safety Analysis, ANE-104, Engine and Propeller 
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, New England Region, 
12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299; 
telephone: (781) 238-7117; facsimile: (781) 238-7199; e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY 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 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.

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.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, 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.

Background

    We are proposing to amend the safety analysis type certification 
standard for turbine aircraft engines. This proposal

[[Page 40676]]

harmonizes the FAA's type certification standard on this issue with 
corresponding standards of the JAA and EASA. The proposed changes, if 
adopted, would establish a nearly uniform safety analysis standard for 
turbine aircraft engines certified in the United States under part 33 
and in European countries under JAR-E and CS-E, thereby simplifying 
airworthiness approvals for import and export.

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)

    The FAA is committed to the harmonization of part 33 with JAR-E and 
CS-E. In August 1989, as a result of that commitment, the FAA Engine 
and Propeller Directorate participated in a meeting with the JAA, the 
Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), and the European Association of 
Aerospace Industries (AECMA). The purpose of the meeting was to 
establish a philosophy, guidelines, and a working relationship 
regarding the resolution of issues identified as needing harmonization, 
including the identification of the need for new standards. The safety 
and failure analysis standards were identified as a Significant 
Regulatory Difference in need of harmonization. All parties agreed to 
work in a partnership to jointly address the harmonization effort. This 
partnership was later expanded to include Transport Canada, the 
airworthiness authority of Canada.
    The FAA established the ARAC to provide advice and recommendations 
to the FAA on the full range of its rulemaking activities with respect 
to aviation-related issues. This includes obtaining advice and 
recommendations on the FAA's commitment to harmonize its Federal 
Aviation Regulations and practices with its trading partners in Europe 
and Canada.
    In a notice published on October 20, 1998 (63 FR 56059), the FAA 
asked ARAC, Transport Airplane and Engine Issues Group (TAEIG), to 
provide advice and recommendations on safety and failure analysis 
standards. This proposed rule and associated advisory material is based 
on recommendations resulting from that task.

The Safety Analysis Standard

    The ultimate objective of the safety analysis standard is to ensure 
that the collective risk from all engine failure conditions is 
acceptably low. An acceptable total engine design risk is achieved by 
managing the individual risks to acceptable levels. This concept 
emphasizes reducing the risk of an event proportionally with the 
severity of the hazard it represents.
    Aircraft-level requirements for individual failure conditions may 
be more severe than the engine-level requirements. Early coordination 
between the engine manufacturer, the aircraft manufacturer, and the 
appropriate FAA certification offices, will provide assurance that the 
engine will be eligible for installation in the aircraft. Early 
coordination will also ensure that the engine applicant is aware of any 
additional and possibly more restrictive aircraft standards that will 
apply to the engine in the installed condition.

Differences Between Part 33 and JAR-E Earlier Requirements

    The following comparisons show differences between part 33 and the 
JAR-E as they existed before the requirements were harmonized. JAA 
subsequently revised the JAR-E on May 1, 2003, as a result of 
harmonization discussions with the FAA. EASA incorporated the 
harmonized rule into its certification standards as CS-E 510.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Existing section 33.75 safety
       JAR-E 510 failure analysis                    analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required a summary listing of all        Requires an assessment that any
 failures that result in major or         probable malfunction, failure,
 hazardous effects, along with an         or improper operation will not
 estimate of the probability of           lead to four specific hazards
 occurrence of these major and            of undefined severity.
 hazardous effects.
Required a list of assumptions           [Most of the assumptions are
 contained within the failure analysis    covered by other paragraphs in
 and the substantiation of those          part 33].
 assumptions.
Referenced the specific hazard of toxic  [This hazard is not mentioned
 bleed air..                              in Sec.   33.75].
Required analysis to examine             Requires analysis to examine
 malfunctions and single and multiple     malfunctions and single and
 failures.                                multiple failures and
                                          examination of improper
                                          operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outcome of Harmonization Effort

    This proposed harmonized standard uses the framework of the current 
JAR-E 510/CS-E 510, while including specific hazards as in the current 
Sec.  33.75.

Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposals

    Under Sec.  33.5, we propose a new paragraph (c) to reflect the new 
requirement for the safety analysis assumptions to be included in the 
engine's installation and operation manual.
    We propose to revise Sec.  33.74 to reflect the new organization of 
the revised Sec.  33.75, including the addition of new specific 
conditions to be evaluated.
    We propose to rewrite Sec.  33.75 using the format of the current 
JAA/EASA equivalent rule to reflect the harmonization effort.
    We propose to revise Sec.  33.76 to reference the specific engine 
conditions listed as hazardous effects within the proposed Sec.  33.75.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to 
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in 
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by 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 the existing regulations for 
safety analysis type certification standard for turbine aircraft 
engines.

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 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

[[Page 40677]]

maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the ICAO Standards and 
Recommended Practices and identified no differences with these proposed 
regulations.

Initial Economic Evaluation, Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Determination, 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, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. 
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of 
the economic impacts of this proposed rule. We suggest readers seeking 
greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we 
have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed 
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an 
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in 
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; 
(5) would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States; and (6) would not impose an unfunded mandate on 
state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by 
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized 
below.

Total Benefits and Costs of This Rulemaking

    The FAA estimates that over the next ten years, the total 
quantitative benefits from implementing this proposed rule are roughly 
$0.5 million ($0.4 million present value). In contrast to these 
potential benefits, the estimated cost of compliance is approximately 
$0.3 million ($0.2 million discounted).
    Accordingly, the proposed rule is cost-beneficial due to the 
overall reduction in compliance cost while maintaining the same level 
of safety.

Who Is Potentially Affected by This Rulemaking

    Part 33 Engine Manufacturers.

Assumptions and Sources of Information

    Period of analysis--2006 through 2016.
    Discount rate--7%.
    Compensation Rates, Economic Values for FAA Investment and 
Regulatory Decisions, A Guide, May 2005.

Benefits of This Rule

    We evaluate benefits from adopting European certification 
requirements (often referred to as harmonization) and express them as 
cost savings. The cost savings are the result of the number of hours 
saved simplifying the certification process while maintaining the same 
level of safety.
    The total benefits of this proposal are $0.5 million ($0.4 million 
present value). The benefits are for new type certificates $59,360 
($43,102 present value), and benefits for amended type certificates of 
$426,362 ($309,585 present value).

Costs of This Rule

    One part 33 turbine engine manufacturer informed the FAA that it 
would incur certification costs because of this proposed rule. This 
proposed rule would require an additional 1,000 engineering hours for 
certification of one new engine every two years. The estimated total 
bi-annual cost of $54,210 equals 1,000 hours multiplied by the hourly 
compensation rate of $54.21.\1\ The total cost over a ten-year period 
is $271,050 ($196,812 present value).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Economic Values for FAA Investment and Regulatory Decisions, 
A Guide, December 2004. Table 7-1 lists the total compensation for 
Aircraft Manufacturing (white collar occupation) as $49.04. To 
express 2003 dollars in 2006 dollars we use the estimated average 
GDP annual percent change of 3.4%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Industry representatives for remaining firms informed the FAA that 
their firms currently meet both the FAA and the European requirements. 
Because these firms currently meet both sets of requirements, no extra 
tests would be required because of the proposed rule.

Initial 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 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.
    In our small entity classification, the FAA uses the size standards 
from the Small Business Administration. Only one manufacturer would 
incur costs because of this proposed rule. Because this manufacturer 
employs more than 1,500 employees, it is not considered a small entity. 
The remaining part 33 engine manufacturers would not incur costs 
associated with this proposed rule. These manufacturers would in fact 
realize a prorated portion of the cost saving resulting from a single 
harmonized certification procedure.
    Consequently, the FAA certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal

[[Page 40678]]

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 proposed rule considers and 
incorporates an international standard as the basis of a FAA 
regulation. Thus the proposed 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 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. The requirements of Title II do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA 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, and therefore, would not have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E defines FAA actions that may be categorically 
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act 
environmental impact statement in the absence of extraordinary 
circumstances. We 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

    We analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We 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 (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. In Sec.  33.5, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  33.5  Instruction manual for installing and operating the engine.

* * * * *
    (c) Safety analysis assumptions. The assumptions of the safety 
analysis as described in Sec.  33.75(d) with respect to the reliability 
of safety devices, instrumentation, early warning devices, maintenance 
checks, and similar equipment or procedures that are outside the 
control of the engine manufacturer.
    3. Revise Sec.  33.74 to read as follows:


Sec.  33.74  Continued rotation.

    If any of the engine main rotating systems continue to rotate after 
the engine is shutdown for any reason while in flight, and if means to 
prevent that continued rotation are not provided, then any continued 
rotation during the maximum period of flight, and in the flight 
conditions expected to occur with that engine inoperative, must not 
result in any condition described in Sec.  33.75(g)(2)(i) through (vi) 
of this part.
    4. Revise Sec.  33.75 to read as follows:


Sec.  33.75  Safety analysis.

    (a)(1) The applicant must analyze the engine, including the control 
system, to assess the likely consequences of all failures that can 
reasonably be expected to occur. This analysis will take into account, 
if applicable:
    (i) Aircraft-level devices and procedures assumed to be associated 
with a typical installation. Such assumptions must be stated in the 
analysis.
    (ii) Consequential secondary failures and latent failures.
    (iii) Multiple failures referred to in paragraph (d) of this 
section or that result in the hazardous engine effects defined in 
paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
    (2) The applicant must summarize those failures that could result 
in major engine effects or hazardous engine effects, as defined in 
paragraph (g) of this section, and estimate the probability of 
occurrence of those effects.
    (3) The applicant must show that hazardous engine effects are 
predicted to occur at a rate not in excess of that defined as extremely 
remote (probability range of 10-7 to 10-9 per 
engine flight hour). Since the estimated probability for individual 
failures may be insufficiently precise to enable the applicant to 
assess the total rate for hazardous engine effects, compliance may be 
shown by demonstrating that the probability of a hazardous engine 
effect arising from an individual failure can be predicted to be not 
greater than 10-8 per engine flight hour. In dealing with 
probabilities of this low order of magnitude, absolute proof is not 
possible, and compliance may be shown by reliance on engineering 
judgment and previous experience combined with sound design and test 
philosophies.
    (4) The applicant must show that major engine effects are predicted 
to occur at a rate not in excess of that defined as remote (probability 
range of 10-5 to 10-7 per engine flight hour).
    (b) If significant doubt exists, the FAA may require that any 
assumption as to the effects of failures and likely combination of 
failures be verified by test.
    (c) The primary failure of certain single elements cannot be 
sensibly estimated in numerical terms. If the failure of such elements 
is likely to result in hazardous engine effects, then compliance may be 
shown by reliance on the prescribed integrity requirements of this 
part. These instances must be stated in the safety analysis.
    (d) If reliance is placed on a safety system to prevent a failure 
from progressing to hazardous engine effects, the possibility of a 
safety system failure in combination with a basic engine failure must 
be included in the analysis. Such a safety system may include safety 
devices, instrumentation, early warning devices, maintenance checks, 
and other similar equipment or procedures. If items of a safety system 
are outside the control of the engine manufacturer, the assumptions of 
the safety analysis with

[[Page 40679]]

respect to the reliability of these parts must be clearly stated in the 
analysis and identified in the installation instructions under Sec.  
33.5 of this part.
    (e) If the safety analysis depends on one or more of the following 
items, those items must be identified in the analysis and appropriately 
substantiated.
    (1) Maintenance actions being carried out at stated intervals. This 
includes the verification of the serviceability of items that could 
fail in a latent manner. When necessary to prevent hazardous engine 
effects, these maintenance actions and intervals must be published in 
the instructions for continued airworthiness required under Sec.  33.4 
of this part. Additionally, if errors in maintenance of the engine, 
including the control system, could lead to hazardous engine effects, 
the appropriate procedures must be included in the relevant engine 
manuals.
    (2) Verification of the satisfactory functioning of safety or other 
devices at pre-flight or other stated periods. The details of this 
satisfactory functioning must be published in the appropriate manual.
    (3) The provisions of specific instrumentation not otherwise 
required.
    (f) If applicable, the safety analysis must also include, but not 
be limited to, investigation of the following:
    (1) Indicating equipment;
    (2) Manual and automatic controls;
    (3) Compressor bleed systems;
    (4) Refrigerant injection systems;
    (5) Gas temperature control systems;
    (6) Engine speed, power, or thrust governors and fuel control 
systems;
    (7) Engine overspeed, overtemperature, or topping limiters;
    (8) Propeller control systems; and
    (9) Engine or propeller thrust reversal systems.
    (g) Unless otherwise approved by the FAA and stated in the safety 
analysis, for compliance with part 33, the following failure 
definitions apply to the engine:
    (1) An engine failure in which the only consequence is partial or 
complete loss of thrust or power (and associated engine services) from 
the engine will be regarded as a minor engine effect.
    (2) The following effects will be regarded as hazardous engine 
effects:
    (i) Non-containment of high-energy debris;
    (ii) Concentration of toxic products in the engine bleed air 
intended for the cabin sufficient to incapacitate crew or passengers;
    (iii) Significant thrust in the opposite direction to that 
commanded by the pilot;
    (iv) Uncontrolled fire;
    (v) Failure of the engine mount system leading to inadvertent 
engine separation;
    (vi) Release of the propeller by the engine, if applicable; and
    (vii) Complete inability to shut the engine down.
    (3) An effect whose severity falls between those effects covered in 
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section will be regarded as a 
major engine effect.
    5. Amend Sec.  33.76 to revise paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  33.76  Bird ingestion.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Ingestion of a single large bird tested under the conditions 
prescribed in this section must not result in any condition described 
in Sec.  33.75(g)(2) of this part.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 13, 2006.
John J. Hickey,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E6-11372 Filed 7-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P