5770 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 33 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–23732; Notice No. 

06–03] 

RIN 2120–AI72 

Airworthiness Standards; Aircraft 

Engine Standards for Engine LifeLimited Parts 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to 

amend the certification standards for 

original and amended type certificates 

for aircraft engines by modifying the 

standards for engine life-limited parts. 

The proposed rule would establish new 

and uniform standards for the design 

and testing of life-limited parts for 

aircraft engines certificated by the FAA, 

the European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), and the Joint Aviation 

Authorities (JAA). Additionally, the 

proposal would add new standards for 

the design of reciprocating engine 

turbocharger rotors. The proposed rule 

would harmonize part 33 requirements 

with EASA and JAA requirements. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before May 3, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

[identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2006–23732] using any of the following 

methods: 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions 

for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– 

001. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For more information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. For more 

information, see the Privacy Act 

discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to 

Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the 

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Mouzakis, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate Standards Staff, ANE–110, 

Engine and Propeller Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, New 

England Region, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, 

Massachusetts 01803–5299; telephone 

(781) 238–7114; fax (781) 238–7199, email: timoleon.mouzakis@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in rulemaking by submitting 

written data, views, or arguments on 

this proposed rule. We also invite 

comments relating to the environmental, 

energy, federalism, or economic impact 

that might result from adopting the 

proposals in this notice. The most 

helpful comments reference a specific 

portion of the proposal, explain the 

reason for any recommended change, 

and include supporting data. We ask 

that you send us two copies of written 

comments. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposed rulemaking. 

The docket is available for public 

inspection before and after the comment 

closing date. If you wish to review the 

docket in person, go to the address in 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

You may also review the docket using 

the Internet at the Web address in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Privacy Act: Using the search function 

of our docket Web site, anyone can find 

and read the comments received into 

any of our dockets, including the name 

of the individual sending the comment 

(or signing the comment on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

Before acting on this proposal, we 

will consider all comments we receive 

on or before the closing date for 

comments. We will consider comments 

filed late if it is possible to do so 

without incurring expense or delay. We 

may change this proposal in light of the 

comments we receive. 

If you want the FAA to acknowledge 

receipt of your comments on this 

proposal, include with your comments 

a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on 

which the docket number appears. We 

will stamp the date on the postcard and 

mail it to you. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not file in the docket information 

that you consider to be proprietary or 

confidential business information. Send 

or deliver this information directly to 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. You must mark the 

information that you consider 

proprietary or confidential. If you send 

the information on a disk or CD ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM 

and also identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is proprietary or 

confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, we do not place it in 

the docket. We hold it in a separate file 

to which the public does not have 

access, and place a note in the docket 

that we have received it. If we receive 

a request to examine or copy this 

information, we treat it as any other 

request under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We 

process such a request under the DOT 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by: 

(1) Searching the Department of 

Transportation’s electronic Docket 

Management System (DMS) Web page 

(http://dms.dot.gov/search); 

(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

(3) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the docket number, notice 

number, or amendment number of this 

rulemaking. 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 5771 

1Category 1: Nacelle damage only; Category 2: 

Minor aircraft damage; Category 3: Significant 

aircraft damage or minor injuries; Category 4: Crash 

landing, hull loss, critical injuries or fatalities. 

Executive Summary 

The FAA, along with the Aerospace 

Industries Association (AIA), which 

represents turbine engine 

manufacturers, conducted a review of 

technologies available to reduce 

uncontained rotor events in response to 

the crash of a DC–10 airplane at Sioux 

City, Iowa, on July 19, 1989. The DC–

10 crash was caused by the presence of 

a material anomaly in the disk titanium 

forging. Additional accidents, along 

with industry studies that show a link 

between manufacturing induced 

anomalies and rotor cracking, 

demonstrated the need for damage 

tolerance requirements and closer 

cooperation between Engineering and 

Manufacturing elements of engine 

manufacturers. 

Anomalies of any type are not 

addressed in determining the proposed 

life of a rotor, although experience with 

gas turbine engines has shown that 

these anomalies can degrade the 

integrity of high-energy rotors. This 

proposed rule would supplement 

existing methodologies for determining 

proposed life by adding a requirement 

for a damage tolerance assessment of 

life-limited parts. The requirement 

would provide an additional margin of 

safety and reduce the number of lifelimited parts failure due to material, 

manufacturing, and service induced 

anomalies. The proposed rule would 

establish new uniform standards for the 

design and testing of engine life-limited 

parts for aircraft engines (§ 33.70) and 

for the design and construction of 

reciprocating engine turbocharger rotors 

(§ 33.34). The proposed rule would also 

strengthen cooperation between 

Engineering, Manufacturing, and 

Service elements of turbine engine 

manufacturers by requiring that the 

Manufacturing and Service plans be 

consistent with the Engineering plan. 

Finally, this action would harmonize 

FAA part 33 requirements with the 

EASA and JAA requirements for aircraft 

engines (§ 33.70). 

Background 

Part 33 of Title 14 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 33) 

prescribes airworthiness standards for 

original and amended type certificates 

for aircraft engines. The Joint Aviation 

Requirements–Engines (JAR–E) and the 

Certification Specifications–Engines 

(CS–E) prescribe corresponding 

airworthiness standards for the 

certification of aircraft engines by the 

JAA and EASA respectively. CS–E and 

JAR–E airworthiness standards are the 

same. While part 33, JAR–E, and CS–E 

are similar, they differ in several 

respects. For applicants seeking 

certification under both part 33 and CS–

E or JAR–E, these differences result in 

additional costs and delays in the time 

required for certification. 

In August 1989, the FAA Engine and 

Propeller Directorate met with the JAA, 

the AIA, and the European Association 

of Aerospace Industries (AECMA). The 

purpose of the meeting was to establish 

a philosophy, guidelines, and a working 

relationship for the resolution of issues 

identified as needing harmonization, 

including the identification of the need 

for new standards. All parties agreed to 

work in a partnership to address the 

harmonization of United States and 

European engine requirements. This 

partnership was later expanded to 

include Transport Canada, the 

airworthiness authority of Canada. 

As part of these harmonization efforts, 

the FAA assigned the task of evaluating 

the current standards for § 33.14 as they 

pertain to the current rotor life 

methodology to the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC) in November 2001. Notice of 

the task was published in the Federal 

Register on November 7, 2001 (66 FR 

56367). Details are in the notice that we 

cite here. 

The current rotor life methodology 

(safe life method) typically determines 

the approved life based on the 

minimum number of cycles required to 

initiate a crack approximately .030 

inches in length. The safe life 

methodology is founded on the 

assumption that rotor components are 

anomaly-free (nominal condition). 

Consequently, the methodology does 

not explicitly address the occurrence of 

anomalies, although some level of 

tolerance to anomalies is implicitly built 

in by using design margins, and 

incorporating factory and field 

inspections. Under nominal conditions, 

the safe life method provides a 

structured process for the design and 

life management of high-energy rotors, 

which results in the assurance of 

structural integrity throughout the life of 

the rotor. 

Service experience with gas turbine 

engines has demonstrated, however, 

that material, manufacturing, and 

service-induced anomalies occur and 

that these anomalies can degrade the 

structural integrity of high-energy 

rotors. Undetectable material 

processing, manufacturing and serviceinduced anomalies represent a 

departure from the assumed nominal 

conditions. The proposed rule would 

supplement the existing methodologies 

with a damage tolerance requirement to 

provide an added margin for material, 

manufacturing and service-induced 

anomalies. The intent of the proposed 

rule is to remove rotor life-limited parts 

from service when they reach the life 

limits based on the safe life 

methodology. Rotor components would 

not be allowed to remain in service with 

cracks. 

In 1990, the FAA requested that the 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 

reconvene the Committee on 

Uncontained Turbine Engine Rotor 

Events to determine the number and the 

root cause of uncontained rotor events. 

The statistics pertaining to uncontained 

rotor events are reported in the SAE 

Committee Report Nos. AIR 1537, AIR 

4003, and SP–1270. While the 

committee did not identify any adverse 

trends, it expressed concern that the 

projected five percent increase in airline 

passengers each year could lead to a 

noticeable increase in the number of 

aircraft accidents from uncontained 

rotor events. 

As a result of the accident at Sioux 

City in 1989, which was caused by a 

material (hard alpha) anomaly in a disk 

titanium forging, the FAA requested that 

turbine engine manufacturers, through 

the AIA, review available technologies 

to determine if a damage tolerance 

requirement could be introduced which, 

if appropriately implemented, would 

reduce the occurrence of uncontained 

rotor events. In response to our request, 

the AIA Rotor Integrity Subcommittee, 

an industry working group, concluded 

that the technology existed to address 

anomalous conditions, although 

additional development and research 

would be required. The FAA and AIA 

also initiated the Rotor Manufacturing 

(RoMan) project to develop a ‘‘Best 

Manufacturing Practices’’ document to 

address manufacturing-induced 

anomalies in high energy rotating 

components. 

Manufacturing induced anomalies 

have caused other accidents. The crash 

of an MD–88 aircraft in Pensacola, 

Florida, in July 1996, was the result of 

a fan disk rupture. The cause of the fan 

disk rupture was traced to a severely 

worked material surface layer in one tie 

rod bolt hole, introduced during the 

machining process. Notably, industry 

data shows that post-forging 

manufacturing induced anomalies have 

caused about 25 percent of recent rotor 

cracking and failure events. SAE Report 

SP–1270 contains data indicating that 

manufacturing and material causes 

account for 5.6 percent of category 1–4 

events 1 and 4 percent of category 3 & 4 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
5772 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

events, reinforcing the need to conduct 

damage tolerance assessments and for 

stronger links between Engineering and 

Manufacturing. 

General Discussion of the Proposals 

Rotor disk fracture is the major 

contributor to propulsion risk (risk of 

engine failure). The primary causes of 

turbine engine rotor disk failures are 

material, manufacturing, and 

operationally induced anomalies (for 

example, improper repair, fretting, or 

corrosion). While compliance with the 

current requirements has resulted in 

significant improvements in rotor 

uncontained failure rates, incorporation 

of recently developed technologies and 

methodologies should provide further 

improvement. 

Experience with several types of static 

parts has demonstrated that fatigue 

failures have the potential to result in 

hazardous effects. In the context of this 

proposed rule, hazardous engine effects 

are the conditions listed in § 33.75. For 

example, some high-pressure casing 

fatigue failures have resulted in 

uncontained high-energy fragments and 

fire. In addition, the operating pressures 

of engines continue to rise, which also 

increases the potential for hazardous 

effects. In some instances, the Engine 

Certification Office has used ‘‘issue 

papers’’ to direct engine manufacturers 

to evaluate the fatigue capabilities of 

engine static structures. These ‘‘issue 

papers’’ are based on § 33.19(a), which 

requires the engine to be designed and 

constructed to minimize the 

development of an unsafe condition 

between overhaul periods. Despite this 

action, engine case ruptures continue to 

contribute to propulsion risk. Based on 

the CAAM (Continued Airworthiness 

Assessment Methodologies) data, case 

ruptures is the tenth leading cause of 

level 3 or 4 events and represents a 

significant hazard from engines 

installed on part 25 airplanes. 

We are introducing the term ‘‘engine 

life-limited parts’’ in this proposed rule 

to cover all parts, rotating and static, 

that rely on meeting prescribed integrity 

requirements to avoid their primary 

failure which is likely to result in a 

hazardous engine effect. The current 

rules for control of engine life-limited 

parts are deficient in a number of areas. 

They do not contain: 

• A concise and coherent rule for the 

overall control of life-limited rotating 

parts in terms of design, manufacture 

and service/maintenance; 

• Fatigue life and integrity 

requirements for static parts that meet 

the definition of an engine life-limited 

part; or 

• Requirements to account for the 

potential degrading effects of anomalous 

materials and manufacturing or usageinduced anomalies. 

As mentioned earlier, the FAA 

initiated action to harmonize JAR–E 515 

with § 33.14 to eliminate differences 

and to improve design requirements (for 

example, the introduction of damage 

tolerance). Presently, the part 33 and 

JAR–E requirements for ‘‘engine lifelimited parts’’ differ in the following 

aspects: 

• Part 33 does not require that 

engineering assumptions be linked to 

the manufacturing processes used to 

produce the part, and 

• Part 33 does not require that 

engineering assumptions be linked to 

the maintenance processes used in 

service, and 

• Part 33 does not require life limits 

to be maintained during service 

operation. 

The proposed rule establishes explicit 

structural integrity requirements for 

engine life-limited parts, adopting the 

general intent of JAR–E 515 for both 

static and rotating engine life-limited 

parts. 

The FAA uses the term ‘‘engine lifelimited parts’’ while the JAR and EASA 

rules use the term ‘‘engine critical 

parts.’’ The FAA has decided against 

using ‘‘engine critical parts’’ because a 

substantial number of FAA documents 

that deal with PMA (Parts Manufacturer 

Approval) and repair use the term 

‘‘critical.’’ ‘‘Critical’’ in the context of 

existing FAA documents has a broader 

definition that can apply to items other 

than parts, such as processes, 

appliances, and characteristics. 

The FAA has used industry 

experience to identify issues that need 

to be addressed in this rulemaking. The 

new harmonized proposal defines 

engine life-limited parts as structural 

parts whose primary failure is likely to 

result in a hazardous engine effect. As 

noted above, current regulations do not 

contain fatigue life and integrity 

requirements for engine static parts, yet 

some of these parts meet the definition 

of an engine life-limited part. The new 

harmonized proposal addresses all 

parts, rotating or static, that meet the 

definition of an engine life-limited part. 

The integrity of engine life-limited parts 

will be established by linking the 

Engineering, Manufacturing and Service 

Management Plans. 

The current requirement for rotors 

primarily addresses low-cycle fatigue 

(LCF), with life limits based on crack 

initiation using a procedure approved 

by the FAA. In addition, the applicant 

is expected to conduct sufficient 

analysis and testing to evaluate the 

effects of elevated temperatures and 

hold times as well as the interaction 

with other failure mechanisms (for 

example, high cycle fatigue, creep, and 

cold-dwell). The new harmonized 

proposal, through the Engineering Plan, 

would continue to address LCF in the 

same manner as the existing rule, but 

would also introduce new requirements 

to conduct damage tolerance 

assessments to limit the potential for 

failure from material, manufacturing 

and service-induced anomalies. The 

proposed rule requires FAA approval of 

the procedures used to establish life 

limits and address anomalies. In 

addition, applicants must identify and 

control attributes that are critical to the 

integrity of the part. In the context of 

this proposed rule, attributes are 

inherent characteristics of the finished 

part that determine its capability. 

The Manufacturing and Service 

Management Plans would be developed 

to ensure that the attributes identified 

within the Engineering Plan are 

consistently manufactured and 

maintained throughout the lifetime of 

the part. 

The general methods and approaches 

that are used to establish the approved 

lives for static engine life-limited parts 

are similar to those used for engine lifelimited rotating parts. The life limits of 

engine life-limited rotating parts are 

based on the initiation of a crack. 

However, for some static parts, such as 

high-pressure casings, the approved life 

may use a portion of the residual crack 

growth life in addition to the crack 

initiation life. The use of residual crack 

growth life specifically does not apply 

to rotor components. If the approved life 

includes reliance on the detection of 

cracks prior to reaching the life limit, 

the reliability of the crack detection 

technique should be considered. Any 

dependence upon crack detection 

should result in mandatory inspection 

and be part of the Service Management 

Plan and included in the Airworthiness 

Limitations Section of the Instructions 

for Continued Airworthiness. 

Some static part construction 

techniques may require the use of 

damage tolerance techniques to 

determine the life limit. For life-limited 

static parts that utilize construction 

techniques that inherently contain 

anomalies, such as welds and castings, 

the anomalies should be considered as 

part of the methodology to establish the 

approved life. Fracture mechanics is a 

common method for such assessments. 

To ensure a complete understanding 

of the proposed rule, the following 

definitions are provided, but are not 

part of the rule itself: 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 5773 

• Primary failure: Failure of a part 

that is not the result of a prior failure 

of another part or system. 

• Failure: Separation of the part into 

two or more pieces such that the part is 

no longer whole or complete. 

• Likely to result: Given that the part 

has failed regardless of its probability of 

occurrence, what are the possible effects 

on the engine and aircraft? 

• Anomalies: The presence of 

abnormal material forms or physical 

shapes that are not permitted by the 

engineering specifications. Nicks, dings, 

and dents are examples of physically 

shaped anomalies. Hard Alpha in 

titanium is an example of a material 

anomaly. Cracks that are the result of 

fatigue are not considered an anomaly 

because they are the result of normal 

service usage. 

The FAA considers it necessary to 

completely replace the existing § 33.14 

‘‘Start-stop cyclic stress (low-cyclefatigue)’’ with proposed § 33.70. Section 

33.14 is in ‘‘Subpart B—Design and 

Construction; General’’ of part 33 and is 

applicable to a broad range of products 

including reciprocating engines, turbo 

superchargers, and turbine aircraft 

engines. The FAA developed the new 

proposed rule, § 33.70, based on 

principles and experience applicable to 

turbine aircraft engines, and it is not 

considered applicable to other products. 

Removal of § 33.14 from Subpart B 

eliminates turbocharger rotor life 

requirements from part 33. Showing 

compliance to § 33.14 has been 

accomplished concurrently with 

§ 23.909(c) by performance of a 

turbocharger rotor containment test. 

This shows that failure of these rotors 

does not produce a hazard to the 

aircraft, thus satisfying the requirements 

of § 33.14 without the need to calculate 

the LCF life. The FAA proposes a new 

§ 33.34 to replace the turbocharger rotor 

life requirements removed by 

elimination of § 33.14. 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, 

‘‘General Requirements.’’ Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations for practices, 

methods, and procedures the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce, including minimum 

safety standards for aircraft engines. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

that authority because it updates the 

existing regulations for aircraft engine 

life-limited parts. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. We 

have determined that there are no 

current new information collection 

requirements associated with this 

proposed rule. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these proposed regulations. 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review,’’ dated September 

30, 1993 (58 FR 51736), directs the FAA 

to assess both the costs and the benefits 

of a regulatory change. We are not 

allowed to propose or adopt a regulation 

unless we make a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify the costs. 

Our assessment of this rulemaking 

indicates that its economic impact is 

minimal because U.S. turbine engine 

manufacturers are already 

manufacturing turbine engines 

according to European joint aviation 

requirements that are equivalent to 

these proposed requirements. Because 

the costs and benefits of this action do 

not make it a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined in the Order, we have 

not prepared a ‘‘regulatory evaluation,’’

which is the written cost/benefit 

analysis ordinarily required for all 

rulemaking under the DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures. We do not 

need to do a full evaluation where the 

economic impact of a rule is minimal. 

Economic Assessment, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact 

Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates 

Assessment 

Proposed changes to Federal 

regulations must undergo several 

economic analyses. First, Executive 

Order 12866 directs that each Federal 

agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the 

economic impact of regulatory changes 

on small entities. Third, the Trade 

Agreements Act of 1979 prohibits 

agencies from setting standards that 

create unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States. 

In developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires Federal agencies to 

consider international standards and, 

where appropriate, that they be the basis 

for U.S. standards. Fourth, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

requires Federal agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more (adjusted annually 

for inflation) in any one year. 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined that this proposed rule 

(1) has benefits that justify its costs, is 

not ‘‘a significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, and is not ‘‘significant’’ as 

defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures; (2) would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities; (3) 

would reduce barriers to international 

trade; and (4) does not impose an 

unfunded mandate on state, local, or 

tribal governments, or the private sector. 

These analyses, available in the docket, 

are summarized below. 

Presently, U.S. turbine engine 

manufacturers must satisfy the 

certification requirements of both the 

FAA and the European joint aviation 

requirements to market turbine engines 

in both the United States and Europe. 

Meeting two different sets of 

certification requirements can increase 

the costs of developing turbine engines 

often with no associated safety benefits. 

In the interests of fostering international 

trade, lowering the cost of aircraft and/ 

or engine development, and making the 

certification process more efficient, the 

FAA, the European Aviation Safety 

Agency, and equipment manufacturers 

have been working to create, to the 

maximum extent possible, a uniform set 

of certification requirements accepted in 

both the United States and Europe. This 

endeavor is referred to as 

‘‘harmonization.’’

This proposal replaces § 33.14 with 

new §§ 33.34 and 33.70 to reflect the 

‘‘more stringent’’ requirements in JAR–


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
5774 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

E 515 or CS–E 515, ‘‘Engine Critical 

Parts.’’ The FAA has concluded (for the 

reasons previously discussed in the 

preamble) that the adoption of these 

JAR–E or CS–E requirements into the 

federal aviation regulations is the most 

efficient way to harmonize the 

separately derived requirements. In so 

doing, the existing level of safety is 

preserved. 

The FAA estimates that there would 

be minimal (if any) costs associated 

with this proposed rule. The major 

turbine engine manufacturers were 

members of the ARAC working group 

that developed the proposed 

requirements. These manufacturers 

indicate that all such engines sold 

overseas are currently certificated under 

JAR–E 515 or CS–E 515; thus, U.S. 

engine manufacturers would incur no 

additional costs resulting from this 

proposal. 

There are, however, potential safety 

benefits in codifying what is now 

‘‘industry practice’’ into a permanent 

U.S. standard. This action assures that 

any current or future U.S. turbine 

engine manufacturer choosing not to 

market its engines overseas would 

nevertheless be required to meet ‘‘new’’

(in federal aviation regulations) more 

stringent standards. As noted earlier, 

fatigue failures have the potential to 

result in hazardous effects (some highpressure casing fatigue failures have led 

to uncontained high-energy fragments 

and fire), with potential for loss of lives 

and/or serious injuries. 

In addition, this proposed rule fosters 

international trade as it accepts 

international standards as the basis for 

U.S. regulation(s). With minimal costs 

and potential benefits, the FAA finds 

this proposal to be clearly costbeneficial. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

directs the FAA to fit regulatory 

requirements to the scale of the 

business, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

the regulation. We are required to 

determine whether a proposed or final 

action will have a ‘‘significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities’’ as they are defined in the Act. 

If we find that the action will have a 

significant impact, we must do a 

regulatory flexibility analysis. 

None of the turbine engine 

manufacturers in the ARAC Working 

Group who helped develop the 

proposed requirements are small 

entities (they each have 1,500 or more 

employees). Consequently, we contacted 

another turbine engine manufacturer 

that is not an ARAC member but is a 

small entity. That manufacturer 

affirmed that meeting the proposed 

requirements would result in minimal 

incremental costs. We found that there 

are no other small entity turbine engine 

manufacturers who would be affected 

by this proposal. Therefore, we certify 

that this proposed action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

prohibits Federal agencies from 

establishing any standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Legitimate domestic objectives, such as 

safety, are not considered unnecessary 

obstacles. The statute also requires 

consideration of international standards 

and, where appropriate, that they be the 

basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 

assessed the effect of this proposed 

rulemaking and determined that it will 

reduce trade barriers by reducing 

differences between the U.S. and 

European regulations. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (the Act) is intended, among 

other things, to curb the practice of 

imposing unfunded Federal mandates 

on State, local, and tribal governments. 

Title II of the Act requires each Federal 

agency to prepare a written statement 

assessing the effects of any Federal 

mandate in a proposed or final agency 

rule that may result in an expenditure 

of $100 million or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any one year 

by State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or by the private sector; 

such a mandate is deemed to be a 

‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ The 

FAA currently uses an inflationadjusted value of $120.7 million in lieu 

of $100 million. 

This NPRM does not contain such a 

mandate. The requirements of Title II of 

the Act, therefore, do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

National Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, we 

determined that this proposed 

rulemaking would not have federalism 

implications. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed rule qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

Chapter 3, paragraph 312d and involves 

no extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this NPRM 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We 

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend part 33 of Title 14 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 33—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES 

1. The authority citation for part 33 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–

44702, 44704. 

§ 33.14 [Removed] 

2. Remove § 33.14. 

3. Add new § 33.34 to read as follows: 

§ 33.34 Turbocharger rotors. 

Each turbocharger case must be 

designed and constructed to be able to 

contain fragments of a compressor or 

turbine that fails at the highest speed 

that is obtainable with normal speed 

control devices inoperative. 

4. Add new § 33.70 to read as follows: 

§ 33.70 Engine life-limited parts. 

Engine life-limited parts are those 

parts whose primary failure is likely to 

result in a hazardous engine effect. 

Typically engine life-limited parts may 

include disks, spacers, hubs, shafts, 

high-pressure casings, and nonredundant mount components. For the 

purposes of this section, a hazardous 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 5775 

engine effect is any of the conditions 

listed in § 33.75 of this part. The 

applicant will establish the integrity of 

each engine life-limited part by: 

(a) An Engineering Plan, the 

execution of which establishes and 

maintains that the combinations of 

loads, material properties, 

environmental influences and operating 

conditions, including the effects of parts 

influencing these parameters, are 

sufficiently well known or predictable, 

by validated analysis, test or service 

experience, to allow engine life-limited 

parts to be withdrawn from service at an 

approved life before hazardous engine 

effects can occur. Applicants must 

perform appropriate Damage Tolerance 

assessments to address the potential for 

failure from material, manufacturing, 

and service-induced anomalies within 

the approved life of the part. The FAA 

must approve the procedures by which 

the approved life is determined. 

Applicants must publish a list of the 

life-limited engine parts and the 

approved life for each part in the 

Airworthiness Limitations Section of 

the Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness as required by § 33.4 of 

this part. 

(b) A Manufacturing Plan that 

identifies the specific manufacturing 

constraints necessary to consistently 

produce engine life-limited parts with 

the attributes required by the 

Engineering Plan. 

(c) A Service Management Plan that 

defines in-service processes for 

maintenance and repair of engine lifelimited parts that will maintain 

attributes consistent with those required 

by the Engineering Plan. These 

processes will become part of the 

Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 26, 

2006. 

Dorenda D. Baker, 

Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–950 Filed 2–1–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL2