[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 172 (Thursday, September 6, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51314-51317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-17626]



[[Page 51313]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Parts 33



 Airworthiness Standards; Aircraft Engine Standards for Pressurized 
Engine Static Parts; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 172 / Thursday, September 6, 2007 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 51314]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 33

[Docket No. 2007-28501; Notice No. 07-08]
RIN 2120-AJ05


Airworthiness Standards; Aircraft Engine Standards for 
Pressurized Engine Static Parts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to amend the aircraft engine type 
certification standards by adding standards for pressurized engine 
static parts that are equivalent to those already adopted by European 
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The proposed rule would establish 
uniform standards for the certification of these parts in the United 
States and in Europe. U.S. manufacturers already meet the EASA 
requirements.

DATES: Comments to be submitted on or before December 5, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket No. FAA-2007-
28501, using any of the following methods:
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow 
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 1-
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Take comments to the Docket Management 
Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.
    For more information on the rulemaking process, see the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to 
http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information that you 
provide. For more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to 
http://dms.dot.gov at any time or, to Docket Management Facility; U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble, under the Additional 
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal 
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is 
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of 
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how 
you can get a copy of this proposal and related rulemaking documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is 
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's 
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General 
Requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing 
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator 
finds necessary for safety in air commerce, including minimum safety 
standards for aircraft engines. This regulation is within the scope of 
that authority because it updates the existing regulations for aircraft 
engine static parts.

Background

    Part 33 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 
33) prescribes airworthiness standards for original and amended type 
certificates for aircraft engines certificated in the United States. 
The Certification Specifications for Engines (CS-E) prescribe 
corresponding airworthiness standards for aircraft engine certification 
in Europe by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). While part 33 
and the European regulations are similar, they differ in several 
respects. For applicants seeking certification under both part 33 and 
CS-E, these differences can result in additional costs and delays.
    In 1989, the FAA met with the European Joint Aviation Authorities 
and U.S. and European aviation industry representatives to commence 
rulemaking to harmonize U.S. and European certification standards. 
Transport Canada subsequently joined this effort. The FAA tasked the 
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) \i\ through its Engine 
Harmonization Working Group to review existing regulations and 
recommend changes that would eliminate differences in U.S. and European 
engine certification standards for pressurized engine static parts. 
This proposed rule is based on ARAC's recommendations to the FAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \i\ Published in the Federal Register on October 20, 1998 (63 FR 
56059). See Task 13: Fatigue Pressure Test/Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Discussion of the Proposal

    Typically, pressurized engine static parts are external engine 
cases or pressure vessels that operate at significant pressures. They 
include, but are not limited to: Compressor, combustion, diffuser, and 
turbine cases; heat exchangers; bleed valve solenoids; starter motors; 
and fuel, oil and hydraulic system components. FAA regulations do not 
contain explicit standards for these parts.
    Engine case ruptures continue to contribute to propulsion risk. 
Data from the Continued Airworthiness Assessment Methodologies (CAAM) 
indicates that case ruptures were the 10th leading cause of CAAM level 
3 or 4 events \ii\ from 1982 to 1996 and represent a significant hazard 
to airplanes certificated under part 25. The proposed rule would 
establish explicit structural integrity requirements for engine static 
parts that may result in a reduction in burst events of pressurized 
cases in future certificated engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \ii\ Level 3 events involve serious consequences that cause 
substantial damage to the aircraft or to a second, unrelated system. 
Level 4 events involve severe consequences including either forced 
landing, loss of aircraft, or serious injuries to passengers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    U.S. aircraft engine manufacturers who meet the European 
certification requirements already comply with the intent of this 
proposed regulation, since EASA's requirements contain these

[[Page 51315]]

proposed standards. This proposed rule would establish similar 
certification standards in the United States and in Europe with respect 
to pressurized parts/cases designed to contain pressurized gases or 
liquids.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there 
are no new information collection requirements associated with this 
proposed rule.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. We reviewed 
the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and 
identified no differences with these proposed regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires 
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small 
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. 
standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. 
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more, in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base year 
of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of 
the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does 
not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to 
that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a full 
regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a 
determination has been made for this proposed rule. The reasoning for 
this determination follows:
    This proposed rule:
     Would use European certification requirements, CS-E 640, 
as the basis for the proposed Sec.  33.64.
     Would update the federal aviation regulations to reflect 
current industry standards.
     Would not result in incremental costs.
     May reduce existing certification costs.
    Presently, engine manufacturers must demonstrate compliance with 
both part 33 and European certification standards to market turbine 
engines in both the United States and Europe. Meeting two sets of 
certification requirements raises the cost of developing a new turbine 
engine.
    EASA has adopted this proposed standard as CS-E 640 Pressure Loads. 
This proposed rule would add the provisions of CS-E 640 Pressure Loads 
to part 33 as a new Sec.  33.64, Pressurized engine static parts, under 
Subpart E--Design and Construction; Turbine Aircraft Engines. We have 
concluded, for the reasons discussed above, that adoption of this 
proposed rule, consistent with the EASA standards, into part 33 would 
be the most efficient way to enhance safety.
    We estimate that no incremental costs are associated with this 
proposal. Our review of turbine aircraft engine manufacturers revealed 
that they currently design their engines to meet the standards of CS-E 
640 Pressure Loads. Since our proposed rule would adopt this standard, 
manufacturers would incur no additional costs resulting from this 
proposal, if adopted as a final rule.
    By creating common part 33 and EASA requirements, turbine engine 
manufacturers would only need to design to one certification standard. 
We did not attempt to quantify the cost savings from this specific 
proposal, but note that harmonization in this area would contribute to 
the overall savings that certification to one standard provides. We 
have also concluded that further analysis is not required because 
turbine engine manufacturers are already designing to the CS-E 640 
Pressure Loads standard that this document proposes.
    This expected outcome of this proposal would be a minimal impact 
with positive net benefits. Therefore, a complete regulatory evaluation 
was not prepared. The FAA requests comments with supporting 
justification about the FAA determination of minimal impact.
    In view of the above, we determined that this proposed rule is not 
a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the 
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required. The certification must include a statement providing the 
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    We believe that this proposed rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We 
identified six companies that produce civil turbine aircraft engines in 
the United States. Only one, Williams International, is a small entity. 
The other five U.S. turbine aircraft engine manufacturers exceed the 
Small Business Administration small entity criteria of 1,000 employees 
for North American Industrial Classification 2002

[[Page 51316]]

(NAICS 2002)--No. 336412, Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts 
Manufacturing. See the following table.

U.S. Civil Aircraft Turbine Engine Manufacturers and Number of Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Number of
     Number         Manufacturer      Parent company       employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............  GE Aviation        General Electric   316,000 (Dec. 31,
                  Commercial         Co.                2005) Source:
                  Engines.                              www.Hoovers.com.
                                                        Accessed: Feb.
                                                        12, 2007.
2..............  Honeywell          Honeywell          116,000 (Dec. 31,
                  Aerospace.         International      2005) Source:
                                     Inc.               www.Hoovers.com.
                                                        Accessed: Feb.
                                                        12, 2007.
3..............  International      Consortium,        > 1,000, Pratt &
                  Aero Engines       incorporated in    Whitney and
                  (IAE).             Switzerland.       Rolls-Royce both
                                     Owned by: Pratt    employ more than
                                     & Whitney; Rolls-  1,000 people.
                                     Royce; Japanese    Therefore, IAE
                                     Aero Engines       is not a small
                                     Corporation; &     entity.
                                     MTU Aero Engines.
4..............  Pratt & Whitney..  United             222,200 (Dec. 31,
                                     Technologies       2005) Source:
                                     Corporation.       www.Hoovers.com.
                                                        Accessed: Feb.
                                                        12, 2007.
5..............  Rolls-Royce North  Rolls-Royce Group  35,600 (Average
                  America.           plc.               Weekly, 2005)
                                                        Source:
                                                        www.Hoovers.com.
                                                        Accessed: Feb.
                                                        12, 2007.
6..............  Williams Intl....  .................  600 (Dec. 31,
                                                        2004) Source:
                                                        www.Gale.com.
                                                        Accessed: Feb.
                                                        13, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We expect the proposed rule to have, at most, a minor effect on the 
existing U.S. manufacturers because they are already meeting the 
proposed rule's requirements.
    Therefore the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination.

Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related 
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are 
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires 
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that 
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the 
potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined that it is in 
accord with the Trade Agreements Act as the proposed rule uses European 
standards as the basis for U.S. regulations.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one 
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by 
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant 
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value 
of $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million.
    This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this 
action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. Therefore, we determined that this notice of proposed 
rulemaking would not have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the 
categorical exclusion identified in Chapter 3, paragraph 312d and 
involves no extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not 
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, 
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Additional Information

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this 
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also 
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or 
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in 
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion 
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and 
include supporting data.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a 
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel 
concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public 
inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to 
review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section 
of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the 
Internet at the web address in the ADDRESSES section.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
    1. Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket 
Management System (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search):
    2. Visiting the Office of Rulemaking's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfm; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking,

[[Page 51317]]

ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 
calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number, notice 
number, or amendment number of this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend part 33 of Title 14 Code of Federal 
Regulations (14 CFR part 33) as follows:

PART 33--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES

    1. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704

    2. Add Sec.  33.64 to Subpart E to read as follows:


Sec.  33.64  Pressurized engine static parts.

    (a) Strength. The applicant must establish by test, validated 
analysis, or a combination of both, that all static parts subject to 
significant gas or liquid pressure loads for a stabilized period of one 
minute will not:
    (1) Exhibit permanent distortion beyond serviceable limits or 
exhibit leakage that could create a hazardous condition when subjected 
to the greater of the following pressures:
    (i) 1.1 times the maximum working pressure;
    (ii) 1.33 times the normal working pressure; or
    (iii) 35 kPa (5 PSI) above the normal working pressure.
    (2) Exhibit fracture or burst when subjected to the greater of the 
following pressures:
    (i) 1.15 times the maximum possible pressure;
    (ii) 1.5 times the maximum working pressure; or
    (iii) 35 kPa (5 PSI) above the maximum possible pressure.
    (b) Compliance with this section must take into account:
    (i) The operating temperature of the part;
    (ii) Any other significant static loads in addition to pressure 
loads;
    (iii) Minimum properties representative of both the material and 
the processes used in the construction of the part; and
    (iv) Any adverse geometry conditions allowed by the type design.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 30, 2007.
John J. Hickey,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-17626 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P