Rule: Airworthiness Standards: Turbine Aircraft Engines Safety Analysis

Tuesday,
September 4, 2007
Part VII
Department of
Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 33
Airworthiness Standards: Safety Analysis;
Final Rule
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES4
VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:29 Aug 31, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\04SER4.SGM 04SER4
50864 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION business, labor union, etc.). You may certification offices is necessary to
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act determine if more restrictive aircraft
Federal Aviation Administration. statement in the Federal Register standards will apply to the installed
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume engine.
14 CFR Part 33 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
Summary of Comments
[Docket No. FAA–2006–25376; Amendment may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
No. 33–24]
The FAA received three comment
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement letters in response to the NPRM. The
RIN 2120–A174 Fairness Act commenters included General Electric,
The Small Business Regulatory Rolls-Royce, and Transport Canada Civil
Airworthiness Standards: Safety Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of Aviation (TCCA).
Analysis 1996 requires FAA to comply with The commenters supported the rule,
AGENCY: Federal Aviation small entity requests for information or but suggested minor changes. Two
Administration (FAA), DOT. advice about compliance with statutes commenters requested changes to make
and regulations within its jurisdiction. If our regulation more consistent with
ACTION: Final rule.
you are a small entity and you have a EASA’s regulation. In response, we
SUMMARY: The FAA is amending the question regarding this document, you made changes to paragraphs 33.75(a)(2)
safety analysis type certification may contact your local FAA official, or and (c) and added a new paragraph
standard for turbine aircraft engines. the person listed under FOR FURTHER (e)(4). A few comments requested
This rule establishes a nearly uniform INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out changes that go beyond the scope of the
safety analysis standard for turbine more about SBREFA on the Internet at proposed rule. We made no changes to
aircraft engines certified in the United http://www.faa.gov/ the rule in response to these comments.
States under part 33 and in European regulations_policies/rulemaking/ Discussion of the Final Rule
countries under the Certification sbre_act/.
Specifications for Engines, thereby Section 33.74
Authority for This Rulemaking
simplifying airworthiness approvals for We revised § 33.74 to update a
import and export. The FAA’s authority to issue rules reference to § 33.75 that incorporates
regarding aviation safety is found in changes to the hazardous engine effects
DATES: This amendment becomes
Title 49 of the United States Code. in § 33.75.
effective November 5, 2007.
Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the General Electric asserted that an
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
authority of the FAA Administrator. acceptable probability range for a
Robert Grant, Engine and Propeller Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
Directorate, Engine and Propeller hazardous condition should be added to
describes in more detail the scope of the this section for consistency with the
Directorate Standards Staff, ANE–110, agency’s authority.
Federal Aviation Administration, 12 new § 33.75.
This rulemaking is promulgated We do not agree. The change to
New England Executive Park, under the authority described in
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803–5299; § 33.74 is limited to updating the
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section reference to § 33.75 to reflect changes to
telephone: (781) 238–7757; facsimile: 44701, ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under
(781) 238–7199; e-mail: hazardous engine effects in
that section, Congress charges the FAA § 33.75(g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(vi). The
robert.grant@faa.gov. with promoting safe flight of civil suggested change is beyond the scope of
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: aircraft in air commerce by prescribing this rulemaking. No changes were made
regulations for practices, methods, and to the rule due to this comment.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents procedures the Administrator finds
You can get an electronic copy using necessary for safety in air commerce, Section 33.75
the Internet by: including minimum safety standards for This final rule establishes engine
(1) Searching the Department of aircraft engines. This rule is within the safety analysis requirements consistent
Transportation’s electronic Docket scope of that authority because it with those adopted by the EASA in its
Management System (DMS) Web page updates the existing regulations for the Certification Specifications for Engines.
(http://dms.dot.gov/search); safety analysis type certification These new engine safety analysis
(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and standard for turbine aircraft engines. requirements will ensure that the
Policies Web page at http:// collective risk from all engine failure
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or Background
conditions is acceptably low.
(3) Accessing the Government On July 18, 2006, the FAA published
Printing Office’s Web page at http:// a notice of proposed rulemaking Section 33.75(a)
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. (NPRM) entitled Airworthiness Rolls-Royce noted that the equivalent
You can also get a copy by sending a Standards: Safety Analysis (71 FR EASA rule for engine safety analysis
request to the Federal Aviation 40675). The NPRM proposed to requires that any engine part whose
Administration, Office of Rulemaking, establish engine safety analysis failure could result in a hazardous
ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue requirements consistent with those engine effect must be clearly identified.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by adopted by the European Aviation We agree and changed § 33.75(a)(2) to
calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to Safety Agency (EASA) in its more clearly identify engine parts
identify the amendment number or Certification Specifications for Engines whose failure could result in a
docket number of this rulemaking. (CS–E). hazardous engine effect. This change
Anyone is able to search the These new engine safety analysis harmonizes § 33.75(a) with CS–E 510(a).
electronic form of all comments requirements will ensure that the

received into any of our dockets by the collective risk from all engine failure Section 33.75(c)
name of the individual submitting the conditions is acceptably low. Early Rolls-Royce commented that the
comment (or signing the comment, if coordination between the engine equivalent EASA rule specifically
submitted on behalf of an association, manufacturer and the appropriate FAA referenced the CS–E section that
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 50865
contains integrity requirements. Rolls- design. No changes were made to the has reviewed the corresponding ICAO
Royce believes that the proposed FAA rule due to this comment. Standards and Recommended Practices
rule will create confusion by not and has identified no differences with
Section 33.75(g)(1)
specifying the section where integrity these regulations.
requirements are located. Rolls-Royce commented that in some
installations (for example, single-engine Economic Assessment, Regulatory
We agree and changed § 33.75(c) to Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact
directly reference part 33 integrity aircraft) complete loss of power or
thrust in a single engine can lead to an Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates
requirements in §§ 33.15, 33.27, and Assessment
33.70. This change harmonizes event more severe than a minor engine
§ 33.75(c) with CS–E 510(c). effect. Rolls-Royce requested a change to Changes to Federal regulations must
the rule to allow for this situation. undergo several economic analyses.
Section 33.75(e) We do not agree with the requested First, Executive Order 12866 directs that
TCCA noted that one of the items that change. Within part 33, the effects of each Federal agency shall propose or
a safety analysis depends on is present engine failures are assessed at the adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
in the EASA regulations but not in the engine level. In aircraft certification, determination that the benefits of the
proposed text of § 33.75(e). TCCA how the engine is installed in the intended regulation justify its costs.
aircraft is considered in the evaluation Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act
suggested adding a statement to
of the effect on the aircraft of engine of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires
§ 33.75(e) referencing ‘‘Flight crew
failures. No changes were made to the agencies to analyze the economic
actions to be specified in the operating
rule due to this comment. impact of regulatory changes on small
instructions established under § 33.5.’’
Section 33.75(g)(2) entities. Third, the Trade Agreements
We agree with this comment. When
Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies
the safety analysis depends on action by Section 33.75(g)(2) provides a list of from setting standards that create
the flight crew, an appropriate reference effects that will be regarded as unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
should be made to § 33.5. Therefore, we hazardous engine effects. TCCA commerce of the United States. In
added new paragraph (e)(4) to § 33.75. recommends rewording the hazardous developing U.S. standards, this Trade
This change harmonizes § 33.75(e)(4) engine effects related to engine Act requires agencies to consider
with CS–E 510(e)(4). shutdown to emphasize the need for international standards and, where
Section 33.75(f) basic engine fuel control. TCCA also appropriate, that they be the basis of
believes that no credit is given for U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded
Rolls Royce noted that it did not aircraft-installed means to shut down Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
understand the significance of the the engine. TCCA, therefore, suggested 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a
differences between the EASA standard that FAA change the wording of written assessment of the costs, benefits,
CS–E 510(f) and § 33.75(f) regarding § 33.75(g)(2)(vii), which currently reads and other effects of proposed or final
items that must be investigated in the ‘‘Complete inability to shut the engine rules that include a Federal mandate
safety analysis. Specifically, CS–E down,’’ to read ‘‘Lose the capability to likely to result in the expenditure by
510(f)(2) lists ‘‘aircraft-supplied data or shut down the engine.’’ State, local, or tribal governments, in the
electrical power’’ as an item that must We disagree with the suggested aggregate, or by the private sector, of
be considered in the safety analysis change in the rule language. The intent $100 million or more annually (adjusted
while § 33.75(f)(2) does not include this of § 33.75(g)(2) is to define hazardous for inflation with base year of 1995).
item and, instead, references ‘‘manual engine effects not to govern the means This portion of the preamble
and automatic controls.’’ to control the hazardous engine effect. summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the
We believe that the assessment of Section 33.75(a)(1)(i) allows aircraft- economic impacts of this final rule. We
failures of aircraft data or power level devices assumed to be associated suggest readers seeking greater detail
required by the EASA rule is beyond the with a typical installation to be taken read the full regulatory evaluation, a
scope of § 33.75, which applies only to into account in the safety analysis. No copy of which we have placed in the
single-engine failure assessments. changes were made to the rule due to docket for this rulemaking.
Within § 33.75, the effect of an engine this comment. In conducting these analyses, FAA
failure is assessed, including the effects has determined that this final rule: (1)
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
of manual and automatic control Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is
failures. No changes were made to the Paperwork Reduction Act not an economically ‘‘significant
rule due to this comment. An agency may not collect or sponsor regulatory action’’ as defined in section
Section 33.75(g) the collection of information, nor may it 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not
impose an information collection ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s
Rolls-Royce requested clarification or requirement unless it displays a Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4)
deletion of the wording in § 33.75(g), currently valid Office of Management will not have a significant economic
‘‘Unless otherwise approved by the FAA and Budget (OMB) control number. impact on a substantial number of small
and stated in the safety analysis’’ as There are no current or new entities; (5) will not create unnecessary
there is no corresponding wording in requirements for information collection obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
CS–E 510(g). associated with this amendment. United States; and (6) will not impose
We recognize the difference in this an unfunded mandate on state, local, or
case between FAA and EASA International Compatibility
tribal governments, or on the private
regulations and believe there is a need In keeping with U.S. obligations sector by exceeding the threshold
to keep the current wording in under the Convention on International identified above. These analyses are
§ 33.75(g). The current wording in Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to summarized below.
§ 33.75(g) allows for recognition of cases comply with International Civil
where the applicant may show that Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards Benefit Cost Summary
certain defined hazards may be of lesser and Recommended Practices to the The FAA estimates that over the next
or greater severity due to the applicant’s maximum extent practicable. The FAA 10 years, the total quantitative benefits
from implementing this final rule are given serious consideration.’’ The RFA Unfunded Mandates Assessment
roughly $0.7 million ($0.5 million covers a wide-range of small entities, Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
present value). In contrast to these including small businesses, not-for- Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104–4)
potential benefits, the estimated cost of profit organizations, and small requires each Federal agency to prepare
compliance is approximately $0.4 governmental jurisdictions. a written statement assessing the effects
million ($0.3 million present value). Agencies must perform a review to of any Federal mandate in a proposed or
Accordingly, this final rule is cost determine whether a rule will have a final agency rule that may result in an
beneficial due to the overall reduction expenditure of $100 million or more
significant economic impact on a
in compliance cost while maintaining (adjusted annually for inflation with the
substantial number of small entities. If
the same level of safety. base year 1995) in any one year by State,
the agency determines that it will, the
Who Is Potentially Affected by This agency must prepare a regulatory local, and tribal governments, in the
Rulemaking flexibility analysis as described in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such
RFA. a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant
Part 33 Engine Manufacturers. regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently
However, if an agency determines that uses an inflation-adjusted value of
Assumptions
a rule is not expected to have a $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million.
Period of analysis—2007 through significant economic impact on a The FAA has assessed the potential
2016. substantial number of small entities, effect of this final rule and determined
Discount rate—7%. section 605(b) of the RFA provides that that it does not contain such a mandate.
Benefits the head of the agency may so certify Therefore, the requirements of Title II of
and a regulatory flexibility analysis is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
We evaluate the benefits that will not required. The certification must 1995 do not apply.
occur from harmonization and estimate include a statement providing the
them in terms of cost savings for new factual basis for this determination, and Executive Order 13132, Federalism
and amended type certificates. The cost the reasoning should be clear. The FAA has analyzed this final rule
savings are the result of the number of under the principles and criteria of
hours saved from a common The FAA uses the size standards from
the Small Business Administration for Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We
certification process. determined that this action will not
The total benefits of this final rule are Air Transportation and Aircraft
Manufacturing specifying companies have a substantial direct effect on the
$0.7 million ($0.5 million present States, or the relationship between the
value). The benefits are comprised of having less than 1,500 employees as
national Government and the States, or
benefits from certifying new type small entities in its classification. There
on the distribution of power and
designs of $82,125 ($59,632 present are part 33 engine manufacturers who
responsibilities among the various
value) and benefits from certifying qualify as small businesses but will not
levels of government, and therefore does
amended type designs of $589,875 incur costs associated with this final
not have federalism implications.
($428,314 present value). rule. These manufacturers will realize a
prorated portion of the cost saving Environmental Analysis
Costs resulting from a single harmonized FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA
One part 33 turbine engine certification procedure. Although one actions that are categorically excluded
manufacturer told the FAA that it will manufacturer will incur costs as a result from preparation of an environmental
incur additional certification costs as a of this rule, this manufacturer employs assessment or environmental impact
result of this final rule. According to more than 1,500 employees and is not statement under the National
this manufacturer, it will certificate one considered a small entity. Therefore, as Environmental Policy Act in the
new engine every two years, and this the FAA Administrator, I certify that absence of extraordinary circumstances.
final rule will require an additional this final rule will not have a significant The FAA has determined this
1,000 engineering hours to certify each economic impact on a substantial rulemaking action qualifies for the
engine. The estimated biannual cost number of small entities. categorical exclusion identified in
equals the 1,000 hours multiplied by the paragraph 312d and involves no
burdened hourly cost for a certification Trade Impact Assessment
extraordinary circumstances.
engineer ($75.00). When the biannual The Trade Agreements Act of 1979
costs are summed over a 10-year period, Regulations that Significantly Affect
prohibits Federal agencies from Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
the total costs are $375,000 ($272,291 establishing any standards or engaging
present value). in related activities that create The FAA has analyzed this final rule
Regulatory Flexibility Determination unnecessary obstacles to the foreign under Executive Order 13211, Actions
commerce of the United States. Concerning Regulations that
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a Legitimate domestic objectives, such as
safety, are not considered unnecessary Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We
principle of regulatory issuance that have determined that it is not a
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards ‘‘significant energy action’’ under the
the objectives of the rule and of executive order because it is not a
applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and and, where appropriate, that they be the
basis for U.S. standards. ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
informational requirements to the scale Executive Order 12866, and it is not
of the businesses, organizations, and This final rule considers and likely to have a significant adverse effect
governmental jurisdictions subject to incorporates an international standard on the supply, distribution, or use of
regulation. To achieve this principle, as the basis of a FAA regulation. Thus energy.
agencies are required to solicit and this final rule complies with the Trade
consider flexible regulatory proposals Agreements Act of 1979 and does not List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33
and to explain the rationale for their create unnecessary obstacles to Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
actions to assure that such proposals are international trade. safety, Safety.
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 50867
The Amendment this section, and estimate the (1) Maintenance actions being carried
probability of occurrence of those out at stated intervals. This includes the
■ In consideration of the foregoing, the effects. Any engine part the failure of verification of the serviceability of items
Federal Aviation Administration which could reasonably result in a that could fail in a latent manner. When
amends part 33 of Title 14 Code of hazardous engine effect must be clearly necessary to prevent hazardous engine
Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 33) as identified in this summary. effects, these maintenance actions and
follows: intervals must be published in the
(3) The applicant must show that
PART 33—AIRWORTHINESS hazardous engine effects are predicted instructions for continued airworthiness
STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES to occur at a rate not in excess of that required under § 33.4 of this part.
defined as extremely remote (probability Additionally, if errors in maintenance of
■ 1. The authority citation for part 33 range of 10¥7 to 10¥9 per engine flight the engine, including the control
continues to read as follows: hour). Since the estimated probability system, could lead to hazardous engine
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– for individual failures may be effects, the appropriate procedures must
44702, 44704. insufficiently precise to enable the be included in the relevant engine
applicant to assess the total rate for manuals.
■ 2. In § 33.5, add paragraph (c) to read hazardous engine effects, compliance (2) Verification of the satisfactory
as follows: may be shown by demonstrating that the functioning of safety or other devices at
§ 33.5 Instruction manual for installing and probability of a hazardous engine effect pre-flight or other stated periods. The
operating the engine. arising from an individual failure can be details of this satisfactory functioning
predicted to be not greater than 10¥8 must be published in the appropriate
* * * * *
per engine flight hour. In dealing with manual.
(c) Safety analysis assumptions. The
probabilities of this low order of (3) The provisions of specific
assumptions of the safety analysis as
magnitude, absolute proof is not instrumentation not otherwise required.
described in § 33.75(d) with respect to (4) Flight crew actions to be specified
the reliability of safety devices, possible, and compliance may be shown
by reliance on engineering judgment in the operating instructions established
instrumentation, early warning devices, under § 33.5.
maintenance checks, and similar and previous experience combined with
sound design and test philosophies. (f) If applicable, the safety analysis
equipment or procedures that are must also include, but not be limited to,
outside the control of the engine (4) The applicant must show that
major engine effects are predicted to investigation of the following:
manufacturer. (1) Indicating equipment;
occur at a rate not in excess of that (2) Manual and automatic controls;
■ 3. Revise § 33.74 to read as follows:
defined as remote (probability range of (3) Compressor bleed systems;
§ 33.74 Continued rotation. 10¥5 to 10¥7 per engine flight hour). (4) Refrigerant injection systems;
If any of the engine main rotating (b) The FAA may require that any (5) Gas temperature control systems;
systems continue to rotate after the assumption as to the effects of failures (6) Engine speed, power, or thrust
engine is shutdown for any reason while and likely combination of failures be governors and fuel control systems;
in flight, and if means to prevent that verified by test. (7) Engine overspeed,
continued rotation are not provided, (c) The primary failure of certain overtemperature, or topping limiters;
then any continued rotation during the single elements cannot be sensibly (8) Propeller control systems; and
maximum period of flight, and in the estimated in numerical terms. If the (9) Engine or propeller thrust reversal
flight conditions expected to occur with failure of such elements is likely to systems.
that engine inoperative, may not result result in hazardous engine effects, then (g) Unless otherwise approved by the
in any condition described in compliance may be shown by reliance FAA and stated in the safety analysis,
§ 33.75(g)(2)(i) through (vi) of this part. on the prescribed integrity requirements for compliance with part 33, the
of §§ 33.15, 33.27, and 33.70 as following failure definitions apply to
■ 4. Revise § 33.75 to read as follows:
applicable. These instances must be the engine:
§ 33.75 Safety analysis. stated in the safety analysis. (1) An engine failure in which the
(d) If reliance is placed on a safety only consequence is partial or complete
(a) (1) The applicant must analyze the
system to prevent a failure from loss of thrust or power (and associated
engine, including the control system, to
progressing to hazardous engine effects, engine services) from the engine will be
assess the likely consequences of all
the possibility of a safety system failure regarded as a minor engine effect.
failures that can reasonably be expected (2) The following effects will be
to occur. This analysis will take into in combination with a basic engine
regarded as hazardous engine effects:
account, if applicable: failure must be included in the analysis.
(i) Non-containment of high-energy
(i) Aircraft-level devices and Such a safety system may include safety
debris;
procedures assumed to be associated devices, instrumentation, early warning (ii) Concentration of toxic products in
with a typical installation. Such devices, maintenance checks, and other the engine bleed air intended for the
assumptions must be stated in the similar equipment or procedures. If cabin sufficient to incapacitate crew or
analysis. items of a safety system are outside the passengers;
(ii) Consequential secondary failures control of the engine manufacturer, the (iii) Significant thrust in the opposite
and latent failures. assumptions of the safety analysis with direction to that commanded by the
(iii) Multiple failures referred to in respect to the reliability of these parts pilot;
paragraph (d) of this section or that must be clearly stated in the analysis (iv) Uncontrolled fire;
result in the hazardous engine effects and identified in the installation (v) Failure of the engine mount
defined in paragraph (g)(2) of this instructions under § 33.5 of this part. system leading to inadvertent engine
section. (e) If the safety analysis depends on separation;

(2) The applicant must summarize one or more of the following items, (vi) Release of the propeller by the
those failures that could result in major those items must be identified in the engine, if applicable; and
engine effects or hazardous engine analysis and appropriately (vii) Complete inability to shut the
effects, as defined in paragraph (g) of substantiated. engine down.
(3) An effect whose severity falls § 33.76 Bird ingestion. Issued in Washington, DC on August 27,
between those effects covered in * * * * * 2007.
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this (b) * * * Marion Blakey,
section will be regarded as a major (3) Ingestion of a single large bird Administrator.
engine effect. tested under the conditions prescribed [FR Doc. E7–17372 Filed 8–31–07; 8:45 am]
in this section may not result in any BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
■ 5. Amend § 33.76 to revise paragraph condition described in § 33.75(g)(2) of
(b)(3) to read as follows: this part.
* * * * *

Rule: Airworthiness Standards: Turbine Aircraft Engines Safety Analysis

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Rule: Airworthiness Standards: Turbine Aircraft Engines Safety Analysis

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Tuesday,

electronic form of all comments requirements will ensure that the

section. (e) If the safety analysis depends on separation;

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen