[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 187 (Thursday, September 25, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55435-55437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22569]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 33

[Docket No.: FAA-2007-28501; Amendment No. 33-26]
RIN 2120-AJ05


Airworthiness Standards; Aircraft Engine Standards for 
Pressurized Engine Static Parts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending the aircraft engine type certification 
standards by adding standards for pressurized engine static parts that 
are equivalent to those already adopted by the European Aviation Safety 
Agency. This rule establishes uniform standards for the certification 
of these parts in the United States and in Europe. U.S. manufacturers 
already meet the European requirements.

DATES: This amendment becomes effective November 24, 2008.

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: 

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Summary of the NPRM

    A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published on September 
6, 2007 (72 FR 18136) that proposed changes to requirements for 
pressurized engine static parts in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 
part 33. The comment period for the NPRM closed on December 5, 2007.

Summary of the Final Rule

    This final rule on requirements for pressurized engine static parts 
contains minor changes from the NPRM. We made changes to two sections, 
Sec. Sec.  33.71 and 33.91, in response to the comments we received and 
our own review of the proposed rule. This final rule harmonizes FAA and 
EASA regulations for part 33 requirements related to pressurized engine 
static parts.

Summary of Comments

    There were five commenters. Rolls-Royce, General Aviation 
Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and Airbus supported the rule and 
suggested minor changes, which are discussed below. General Electric 
and an individual supported the rule and did not suggest changes.
    The comments relate to the following general areas:
     Component tests; and
     Examples of static parts.

Discussion of the Final Rule

Component Tests

    Pressurized engine static parts operate at significant pressures 
and Sec.  33.64 prescribes tests for these parts at maximum working and 
operating pressures. Rolls-Royce and GAMA commented that Sec.  33.91, 
Engine component tests, should be modified as there was an 
inconsistency between proposed Sec.  33.64 and existing Sec.  33.91(c), 
which prescribes testing of pressurized hydraulic fluid tanks. Rolls-
Royce and GAMA noted that depending on the maximum possible and maximum 
working pressures, as described in Sec.  33.64, and the maximum 
operating pressure as described in Sec.  33.91, the two rules could 
result in two different testing requirements for a given component.
    The FAA agrees that the two rules could be interpreted as separate 
and distinct test requirements, and that testing pressurized hydraulic 
fluid tanks falls under the requirements of the new Sec.  33.64. We 
have also determined that proposed Sec.  33.64 and Sec.  33.71, 
Lubrication system, could be interpreted as two distinct testing 
requirements for a single component. Section 33.71(c)(9) prescribes 
testing for maximum operating temperature and pressure for pressurized 
oil tanks. These tanks should be tested under the requirements of the 
new Sec.  33.64.
    In the final rule, therefore, we are modifying Sec. Sec.  
33.71(c)(9) and 33.91(c) by replacing existing testing requirements for 
pressurized tanks with a reference to meeting the requirements of Sec.  
33.64. This change is consistent with EASA regulations for pressurized 
hydraulic fluid and oil tanks.

Examples of Static Parts

    In the NPRM discussion, we noted examples of pressurized engine 
static parts which include compressor, combustion, diffuser, and 
turbine cases; heat exchangers; bleed valve solenoids; starter motors; 
and fuel, oil and hydraulic system components. Airbus commented that 
the examples of pressurized static parts included in the preamble of 
the NPRM should be expanded to include associated ducts and fittings.
    The purpose of this NPRM discussion was to provide examples to help 
the applicant identify the type of parts affected by this rule. The 
examples provided in the NPRM do not represent a complete list of 
pressurized static parts. It is the applicant's responsibility to 
ensure all applicable pressurized engine parts are identified. We have 
made no changes to the rule in response to this comment.

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 
is no current or new requirement for information collection associated 
with this amendment.

International Compatibility

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

[[Page 55436]]

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, 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 final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning 
for this determination follows.
    The NPRM explained that, presently, engine manufacturers must 
demonstrate compliance with both part 33 and EASA 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.
    In the NPRM, we explained that EASA has adopted this standard as 
CS-E 640 Pressure Loads. This final rule adds 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 estimated that no incremental costs were associated with this 
rule because our review of U.S. turbine aircraft engine manufacturers 
revealed that they currently design their engines to meet the standards 
of CS-E 640 Pressure Loads. Because our rule adopts this standard, 
manufacturers will incur no additional costs resulting from this final 
rule.
    By creating common part 33 and EASA requirements, turbine engine 
manufacturers need to design to only one certification standard. We 
have not attempted to quantify the cost savings from this rulemaking, 
but note that harmonization in this area will 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 EASA's CS-E 640 Pressure Loads.
    As discussed above, we received comments on the proposed rule and, 
where appropriate, have made changes in the final rule. However, we 
received no comments on the economic evaluation of the proposed rule, 
and the changes made to the final rule, as a result of other comments, 
did not affect the economic evaluation of the final rule. Therefore, as 
in the NPRM, the FAA concludes that this rule is expected to have 
minimal cost with positive net benefits and a complete regulatory 
evaluation was not prepared.
    We have determined that this final 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.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, 
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.
    The NPRM was expected to be minimal cost and we concluded ``* * * 
that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.'' We certified that a full 
regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and we requested 
comments on this determination.
    We received no comments on the regulatory flexibility analysis and 
have made no changes to our initial determination because comments 
received on the proposal did not affect our regulatory flexibility 
analysis determination. The final rule, like the NPRM, is minimal cost 
with positive net benefits.
    Therefore, as the Acting FAA Administrator, I certify that this 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

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

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 
(in

[[Page 55437]]

1995 dollars) 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 $136.1 million in lieu of $100 million.
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the 
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

Environmental Analysis

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

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use

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

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this 
rulemaking.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question 
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or 
the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at 
the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on 
the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration 
amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 33--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES

0
1. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. 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 p.s.i.) 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 p.s.i.) above the maximum possible pressure.
    (b) Compliance with this section must take into account:
    (1) The operating temperature of the part;
    (2) Any other significant static loads in addition to pressure 
loads;
    (3) Minimum properties representative of both the material and the 
processes used in the construction of the part; and
    (4) Any adverse geometry conditions allowed by the type design.

0
3. Amend Sec.  33.71 by revising paragraph (c)(9) to read as follows:


Sec.  33.71  Lubrication system.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (9) Each unpressurized oil tank may not leak when subjected to a 
maximum operating temperature and an internal pressure of 5 p.s.i., and 
each pressurized oil tank must meet the requirements of Sec.  33.64.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  33.91 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  33.91  Engine component tests.

* * * * *
    (c) Each unpressurized hydraulic fluid tank may not fail or leak 
when subjected to a maximum operating temperature and an internal 
pressure of 5 p.s.i., and each pressurized hydraulic fluid tank must 
meet the requirements of Sec.  33.64.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 15, 2008.
Robert A. Sturgell,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-22569 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P