Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31479 

State 

Current 

representation 

Proposed 

representation 

South Dakota .... 3 4 

Tennessee ........ 2 3 

Board adjustments as proposed by 

this rulemaking would become effective, 

if adopted, with the 2019 appointment 

process. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1220 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Advertising, Agricultural 

research, Marketing agreements, 

Soybeans and soybean products, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, it is proposed that Title 7, 

part 1220 be amended as follows: 

PART 1220—SOYBEAN PROMOTION, 

RESEARCH, AND CONSUMER 

INFORMATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1220 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6301–6311 and 7 

U.S.C. 7401. 

■ 2. In § 1220.201, the table 

immediately following paragraph (a) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 1220.201 Membership of board. 

(a) * * * 

Unit Number of 

members 

South Dakota ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 

Ohio ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 

North Dakota ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 

Nebraska .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 

Missouri ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 

Minnesota ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 

Iowa ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 

Indiana ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 

Illinois ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 

Wisconsin ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 

Tennessee ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 

Mississippi ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 

Michigan ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 

Kentucky .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 

Kansas ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 

Arkansas .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 

Virginia ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 

Pennsylvania ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 

North Carolina ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 

Maryland .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 

Louisiana .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 

Alabama ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 

Texas ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

South Carolina ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Oklahoma ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 

New York ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 

New Jersey .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Georgia ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 

Delaware .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 

Eastern Region (Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico) ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 

Western Region (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

* * * * * 

Dated: July 2, 2018. 

Bruce Summers, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14507 Filed 7–5–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 33 

[Docket No. FAA–2018–0568; Notice No. 18– 

02] 

RIN 2120–AK83 

Medium Flocking Bird Test at Climb 

Condition 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes the 

addition of a new test requirement to 

the airworthiness regulation addressing 

engine bird ingestion. The current 

regulation ensures bird ingestion 

capability of the turbofan engine fan 

blades, but the existing test conditions 

do not adequately demonstrate bird 

ingestion capability of the engine core. 

This proposed rule would require that, 

to obtain certification of a turbofan 

engine, a manufacturer must show that 

the engine core can continue to operate 

after ingesting a medium sized bird 

while operating at a lower fan speed 

associated with climb or landing. This 

new requirement would ensure that 

engines can ingest the largest medium 

flocking bird required by the existing 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
31480 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1Turbofan engines have fan and core rotors. The 

fan or low pressure compressor is at the front of the 

engine. The core consists of additional compressor 

stages behind the fan. 

2The FAA uses a 27-year period of analysis since 

it represents one complete cycle of actions affected 

by the proposed rule. One life cycle extends 

through the time required for certification, 

production of the engines, engine installation, 

active aircraft service, and retirement of the 

engines. 

rule into the engine core at climb or 

descent conditions. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

September 4, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2018–0568 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 

public to better inform its rulemaking 

process. DOT posts these comments, 

without edit, including any personal 

information the commenter provides, to 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

www.dot.gov/privacy. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to the Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Strom, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Engine and Propeller 

Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification 

Service, AIR–6A1, 1200 District 

Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 

01803–5213; telephone (781) 238–7143; 

fax (781) 238–7199; email alan.strom@

faa.gov. 

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 issued under the 

authority described in 49 U.S.C. 

44701(a)(1). Under that section, the FAA 

is charged with, among other things, 

prescribing minimum safety standards 

for aircraft engines used in the flight of 

civil aircraft in air commerce. This 

proposed rule is within the scope of that 

authority because it updates existing 

regulations for certification of aircraft 

turbofan engines. 

I. Overview of Proposed Rule 

This proposed rule would create an 

additional bird ingestion test for 

turbofan engines. The new requirements 

would be added to 14 CFR 33.76, which 

covers engine testing for bird ingestion. 

This new test would ensure that engines 

can ingest the largest medium flocking 

bird (MFB) required by the existing rule, 

into the engine core at climb conditions. 

If the engine design is such that no bird 

material will be ingested into the engine 

core 1 during the test at climb 

conditions, then the proposed rule 

would require a different test at 

approach conditions. 

The proposed test consists of firing at 

the engine core one MFB, equivalent to 

the largest bird currently required by 

§ 33.76(c) for the engine inlet throat area 

of the engine being tested, using either 

the following climb or descent testing 

conditions for an engine: 

(1) Testing for bird ingestion on climb. 

The test bird would be fired at 250- 

knots, with the mechanical engine fan 

speed set at the lowest expected speed 

when climbing through 3,000 feet 

altitude above ground level (AGL). After 

bird ingestion, the proposal would 

require that the engine comply with 

post-test run-on requirements similar to 

those in existing § 33.76(d)(5), large 

flocking bird (LFB) test, except that, 

depending on the climb thrust of the 

engine, less than 50 percent takeoff 

thrust may be allowed during the first 

minute after bird ingestion. 

(2) Testing for bird ingestion on 

descent. If the applicant determines that 

no bird mass will enter the core during 

the test at the 250-knots/climb 

condition, then the applicant would be 

required to perform an alternative test to 

that described in the paragraph (1). For 

this test, the bird would be fired at 200- 

knots, with the engine mechanical fan 

speed set at the lowest fan speed 

expected when descending through 

3,000 feet altitude AGL on approach to 

landing. Applicants would be required 

to comply with post-test run-on 

requirements that are the same as the 

final six (6) minutes of the existing 

§ 33.76(d)(5) post-test run-on 

requirements for large flocking birds 

(LFB). This is based on the assumption 

that the airplane will already be lined 

up with the runway. 

Summary of Costs and Benefits 

The FAA estimates the annualized 

costs of this proposed rule to be $4 

million, or $52 million over 27 years (at 

a seven percent present discount rate).2

The FAA estimates the annualized 

benefits of $5 million, or $61 million 

over 27 years. The following table 

summarizes the benefits and costs of 

this proposed rule. 

SUMMARY OF BENEFITS AND COSTS

[$Millions] * 

Impact 

27-year total present value Annualized 

7% 3% 7% 3% 

Benefits ............................................................................................................ $61.0 $100.6 $5.1 $5.5 

Costs ................................................................................................................ 51.5 71.5 4.3 3.9 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................. 9.4 29.1 0.8 1.6 

*Estimates may not total due to rounding. FAA uses discount rates of seven and three percent based on OMB guidance. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31481 

3The FAA used prior studies to begin the review, 

such as flocking bird ingestion reports developed as 

Phase I and II reports for the current rule. The Phase 

III report, entitled, ‘‘Aerospace Industries 

Association Bird Ingestion Working Group Interim 

Report—January 2012’’ was produced after the 

Flight 1549 event. The Phase III report is the most 

germane to this proposed rule, as it contains the 

latest bird ingestion data available through January 

2009, including the Flight 1549 accident. 

4The FAA accepted this report on March 19, 

2015. The ARAC working group report included 

recommendations consistent with this proposed 

rule. The FAA will file in the docket copies of the 

referenced reports for this proposed rule. 

II. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

On January 15, 2009, US Airways 

Flight 1549 (‘‘Flight 1549’’) took off 

from La Guardia Airport in New York 

City. On climb, at approximately 2,800 

feet above ground level (AGL) and 

approximately 230-knots indicated 

airspeed, the airplane struck a flock of 

migratory Canadian geese. Both engines 

ingested at least two birds. Both engine 

cores suffered major damage and total 

thrust loss. 

Flight 1549 was an Airbus Model 

A320 airplane. The A320 ‘‘family’’ of 

airplanes (i.e., Model A318/A319/A320/ 

A321) and the Boeing Model 737 

airplanes are among the most frequently 

used airplanes, transporting a 

significant number of airline passengers 

around the world. Most transport 

airplanes and many business aircraft use 

turbofan engines that are susceptible to 

bird ingestion damage which, in some 

instances, has resulted in greater than 

50 percent takeoff thrust loss. In twinengine airplanes, this amount of thrust 

loss in both engines can prevent the 

airplane to climb over obstacles or 

maintain altitude. This is an unsafe 

condition because it can prevent 

continued safe flight and landing. 

As a result of the Flight 1549 

accident, the FAA began studying how 

to improve engine durability with 

respect to core engine bird ingestion.3

As a result of this tasking, the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC) working group produced a 

report titled, ‘‘Turbofan Bird Ingestion 

Regulation Engine Harmonization 

Working Group Report’’, dated February 

19, 2015.4 The ARAC working group 

report concluded that modern fan 

blades (such as those on the Flight 1549 

airplane engines) have relatively wider 

fan blade chords (width) than those in 

service when the current MFB ingestion 

test (codified in 14 CFR 33.76(c)) was 

developed and adopted. The ARAC 

working group report also pointed out 

that the current MFB ingestion test is 

conducted with the engine operating at 

100 percent takeoff power or thrust. 

This setting is ideal for testing the fan 

blades but does not represent the lower 

fan speeds used during the climb and 

descent phases of aircraft flight. 

When an engine ingests a bird, the 

amount of bird mass that enters the 

engine core depends on: (1) The width 

of the fan blade chord, (2) the airplane’s 

speed, and (3) the rotational speed of 

the fan blades. The wider the chord of 

the fan blade and the lower the speed 

of the airplane, the longer the bird will 

remain in contact with the fan blade. As 

airplane speed increases, the bird 

spends less time on the fan blade. With 

higher fan speed, the bird will move 

radially faster away from the core. Thus, 

the longer the time in contact with the 

fan blade, from wider blades and lower 

airspeed, and increased centrifugal 

forces from a higher fan speed result in 

the bird being moved further outboard 

and away from the core. That makes it 

less likely that bird material will enter 

the core during the current test 

compared to the proposed test. 

Conversely, a lower fan speed and 

higher airspeed, for a given fan blade 

width, makes it more likely that the bird 

material will enter the core. 

Currently, the MFB test is conducted 

using 100 percent power or thrust and 

200 knots airspeed, simulating takeoff 

conditions. Consequently, the current 

MFB test does not simulate lower fan 

speed phases of flight (such as climb 

and descent) during which a bird, if 

ingested, is more likely to enter the 

engine core. In addition, the higher 

airspeed in climb is not covered by the 

existing test. Therefore, the existing 

small and medium flocking bird test 

prescribed in § 33.76(c) do not provide 

the intended demonstration of core 

durability against bird ingestion for 

climb and descent conditions. 

B. Related Actions 

Before proposing this rule, the FAA 

reviewed other actions taken by this 

agency to reduce threats of engine bird 

ingestion and concluded that these 

actions would not mitigate the specific 

risk discussed above. These actions 

include the following: 

(1) Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200– 

33B, ‘‘Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on 

or Near Airports’’ provides guidance on 

certain land uses that have the potential 

to attract hazardous wildlife on or near 

public-use airports. 

(2) AC 150/5200–34A, ‘‘Construction 

or Establishment of Landfills Near 

Public Airports’’ provides guidance to 

minimize the impact to air safety when 

landfills, that often attract birds, are 

established near public airports. 

(3) 14 CFR 139.337, Wildlife hazard 

management, identifies certified Airport 

Operator responsibilities with respect to 

hazardous wildlife issues. 

(4) FAA Airport Safety website, 

Wildlife Strike Resources, available at 

http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_

safety/wildlife/resources/, provides 

information on wildlife strike 

prevention, database links, and bird 

strike/ingestion report forms, for use by 

airport authorities, airlines, industry, 

and the public. 

Most bird ingestions occur within five 

miles of an airport, and the ACs 

discussed above generally only apply 

within that radius. However, the Flight 

1549 accident occurred more than five 

miles from La Guardia Airport, and the 

ingested birds were migratory. 

Therefore, while airport bird mitigation 

efforts are necessary to reduce engine 

bird ingestion incidents, these efforts 

will neither eliminate all flocking bird 

encounters, nor reduce the chance that 

such encounters could affect more than 

one engine on an airplane. 

C. National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) Recommendations 

The National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) has issued two enginerelated safety recommendations to the 

FAA: 

(1) A–10–64: Modify the small and 

medium flocking bird certification test 

standard to require that the test be 

conducted using the lowest expected 

fan speed, instead of 100 percent fan 

speed, for the minimum climb rate. 

(2) A–10–65: During re-evaluation of 

the current engine bird-ingestion 

certification regulations by the Bird 

Ingestion Rulemaking Database working 

group, specifically re-evaluate the LFB 

certification test standards to determine 

if they should: 

(a) Apply to engines with an inlet area 

of less than 2.5 square meters (3,875 

square inches). 

(b) Include an engine core ingestion 

requirement. 

If re-evaluation determines the need 

for these requirements, incorporate 

them into 14 CFR 33.76(d) and require 

that newly certificated engines be 

designed and tested to these 

requirements. 

The ARAC working group addressed 

both NTSB safety recommendations. In 

response to NTSB safety 

recommendation A–10–64, the ARAC 

working group recommended the test in 

this proposed rule. The ARAC working 

group found that its recommendation 

would also address the intent of NTSB 

safety recommendation A–10–65, since 

the kinetic energy of the bird in the 

proposed rule is of the same magnitude 

as a LFB test. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
31482 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

5The existing controls to prevent these hazards 

include airport mitigation strategies (previously 

mentioned), and regulatory controls that include 14 

CFR: (a) Part 25 installation requirements, 

concerning uncontained engine debris (e.g., 

§ 25.903(d)(1)) and minimizing hazards to the 

airplane from foreseeable engine malfunctions 

(such as §§ 25.901(c) and 25.1309); (b) Section 33.76 

certification test requirements; and (c) Part 33 

requirements (such as §§ 33.19 and 33.94 

containment requirements, § 33.17 fire protection 

requirements, etc.). 

6The hazards are: (1) Non-containment of highenergy debris; (2) concentration of toxic products in 

the engine bleed air intended for the cabin 

sufficient to incapacitate crew or passengers; (3) 

significant thrust in the opposite direction to that 

commanded by the pilot; (4) uncontrolled fire; (5) 

failure of the engine mount system leading to 

inadvertent engine separation; (6) release of the 

propeller by the engine, if applicable; and (7) 

complete inability to shut the engine down. 

7The MFB test defined in § 33.76(c)(2) requires 

that largest of the birds fired at the engine must be 

aimed at the engine core primary flow path. 

III. Discussion of the Proposal 

A. Hazard Identification 

There are two types of engine bird 

ingestion hazards related to turbofanpowered aircraft: Single- and multipleengine bird ingestion. This proposed 

rule addresses the multiple-engine bird 

ingestion hazard, which can happen 

concurrently or sequentially, during the 

same flight. 

Multiple-engine bird ingestion occurs 

when the airplane flies through a bird 

flock that spans the distance between 

the engines. This can cause engine 

damage that prevents thrust production, 

which can then force an off-airport 

landing. The ARAC working group 

found that the existing rules and 

controls are not sufficient to address the 

threat from multi-engine core ingestion 

events.5

B. Safety Risk Analysis 

The ARAC working group conducted 

a risk analysis to evaluate the bird 

ingestion threat using criteria that 

included (a) bird size class, (b) engine 

inlet size class, (c) phase of flight, and 

(d) recorded events with evidence of 

engine core flow path bird ingestion. 

The analysis included (a) the overall 

bird ingestion rate per flight, (b) rate of 

multi-engine ingestions per flight, (c) 

rate of power loss resulting in available 

power below 50 percent of takeoff per 

flight, and (d) the percent of events 

during each flight phase. Results from 

these analyses were used to determine: 

(1) If the civil air transport fleet is 

currently meeting its safety goal. 

(2) If engines in certain inlet size 

groups are performing worse than 

others. 

(3) If evidence of engine core 

ingestion indicates a greater chance of 

engine power loss (post-event power 

available less than 50 percent of takeoff 

thrust). 

(4) Which flight phase poses the 

highest threat to engines designed under 

existing regulations. 

The ARAC working group also 

analyzed the bird ingestion threat from 

(a) engine damage, and (b) engine failure 

to produce thrust due to stall, surge, etc. 

Thrust loss from bird damage generally 

refers to damage or failure of engine 

internal static and rotating parts. 

Damage that causes any of these hazards 

and those listed in § 33.75 (except 

complete inability to shut down the 

engine), would result in the pilot 

reducing thrust to idle, or shutting 

down the engine. Therefore, damage 

that causes any of the hazards listed in 

§ 33.75(g)(2) 6 was considered to have 

the same effect as internal damage to 

static and rotating engine parts. 

The ARAC working group considered 

two engine performance conditions after 

bird ingestion, namely, less than 50 

percent and more than 50 percent 

takeoff thrust available. Less than 50 

percent takeoff thrust available is a 

hazard, since it could prevent the 

airplane from climbing at a safe rate to 

avoid obstacles, or maintain altitude. 

More than 50 percent takeoff thrust 

available was not considered a hazard, 

as the airplane could still climb at a safe 

rate to avoid obstacles, or maintain 

altitude. Based on bird ingestion data 

from the Phase I through Phase III 

reports, the ARAC working group found 

it is extremely improbable that an 

airplane with more than two engines 

would have power loss greater than 50 

percent of takeoff thrust on three or 

more engines. 

Since a surge or stall could occur 

upon bird ingestion, the ARAC working 

group assessed whether engine surge or 

stall, without significant physical 

damage to the engine’s rotating parts, 

would prevent continued safe flight and 

landing. Based on its review of inservice incidents, the ARAC working 

group determined that surge and stall 

are transitory events unlikely to cause 

an accident, since engine power can be 

recovered when the ingested material is 

cleared. 

Modern fan blades have relatively 

wider fan blade chords than those in 

service when the small and medium 

flocking bird core test in § 33.76(c) was 

developed. At takeoff, the fan speed is 

higher and the airspeed is lower than 

during climb. Therefore, the existing 

MFB core test of § 33.76(c), does not 

provide the intended demonstration of 

core durability against bird ingestion for 

climb and descent conditions. In 

contrast to other phases of flight, takeoff 

conditions (which are simulated under 

the current MFB test) are more likely to 

move bird material away from the core 

section and into the fan flow path than 

climb and descent conditions (which 

are not simulated under the current 

MFB test). Testing the engine at the bird 

speed and fan speed representative of 

the airplane climb condition is more 

likely to result in significant bird 

material entering the engine core during 

the engine test. If the engine is designed 

so that no bird material enters the core 

during climb, then a test at the bird 

speed and fan speed associated with 

approach (lower bird speed but 

significantly lower fan speed) is another 

way to ensure significant bird material 

enters the core. 

The FAA agrees with the ARAC 

working group conclusion that, for 

modern engine designs, the existing 

§ 33.76(c) small and medium flocking 

bird test does not demonstrate engine 

core flow robustness against bird 

ingestion as intended. 

C. Alternatives 

The ARAC working group determined 

there were six (6) MFB test options, as 

follows: 

(1) Conduct the existing test; then add 

a new and separate core test using a 

single bird at climb conditions. 

(2) Conduct the existing test, but leave 

out the core bird test described in 

§ 33.76(c)(2),7 add a new and separate 

core test using a single bird at climb 

conditions. 

(3) Conduct the existing test without 

the existing core bird test; change the 

engine and bird speed conditions to 

match airplane climb conditions, and 

then fire the final bird. 

(4) Conduct the existing test using the 

existing core bird test; change the 

engine and bird speed conditions to 

match airplane climb conditions, and 

then fire the final bird. 

(5) Combine a new MFB engine core 

bird test with the existing LFB test. Fire 

an additional, MFB at the engine core, 

at least one minute after the LFB, but 

before the run-on portion of the test (for 

reference, the LFB is fired at 50 percent 

blade radius or higher, well outside the 

core). 

(6) Make no changes to the existing 

MFB regulation. 

The ARAC working group concluded 

that a modified Option 1 is necessary. 

The working group rejected options that 

would have eliminated the current core 

bird testing requirements set forth in 

§ 33.76(c)(2) once the new test is in 

place. The working group determined 

that the current requirements are still 

needed to test the ability of the engine 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31483 

fan blades to withstand impact with a 

bird at the higher speeds present during 

takeoff. Because the new test proposed 

in this rule uses lower fan speed and 

higher bird speed than those specified 

in the current core bird testing 

requirements, it would be able to 

measure the ability of the engine core to 

withstand impact of bird mass that 

passes through the engine fan blades 

during the climb and descent phases of 

flight. However, the new test would not 

ascertain whether the engine fan blades 

could safely withstand a higher-kineticenergy impact with a bird during the 

takeoff phase of flight while operating at 

100 percent takeoff power or thrust 

(which is measured by the current 

testing). 

The FAA notes, however, that some 

aircraft are designed to operate such that 

their engine power during takeoff is 

nearly identical to their engine power 

during the climb and descent phases of 

flight. Because the takeoff and posttakeoff conditions for this group of 

engines are so similar, requiring an 

additional test that mimics post-takeoff 

conditions would be needlessly 

repetitive for these engines, as the 

current testing already measures bird 

ingestion during takeoff conditions. 

Accordingly, this proposed rule would 

allow the new test to be combined with 

the existing test, if the climb fan rotor 

speed of the engine being tested is 

within 1 percent of the first fan stage 

rotor speed at 100 percent takeoff thrust 

or power. 

The new test would ensure that the 

core flow path of future engines remains 

sufficiently robust to maintain the civil 

fleet catastrophic hazard rate objective 

from bird ingestion. The ARAC working 

group chose this option since the other 

options did not address the safety risk, 

because they introduce unnecessary 

program test risk with no additional 

safety benefit. 

Because the Flight 1549 accident 

involved the ingestion of two birds into 

each engine, the FAA also considered 

requiring that, as part of the new test 

proposed in this rule, an engine must be 

capable of sustaining an ingestion of 

two MFBs into the engine core. 

However, the FAA rejected this 

approach as needlessly burdensome, 

because the simultaneous ingestion of 

two MFBs into the cores of multiple 

engines is an extremely rare event. 

D. New Bird Ingestion Test 

Under this proposed rule, § 33.76 

would be amended to require turbofan 

engine manufacturers to demonstrate 

compliance with an additional bird 

ingestion test. The new test would 

require firing the largest MFB required 

by § 33.76 (Table 2) at the engine core, 

at one of the following two conditions: 

The first test condition is at a speed 

of 250-knots, with the engine fan set at 

the speed associated with the lowest 

expected climb setting for the engine 

while the airplane is climbing through 

3,000 feet above ground level. The posttest run-on requirements would remain 

the same as the existing § 33.76(d)(5). 

Because the climb setting may be 

significantly less than takeoff thrust, 

less than 50 percent takeoff thrust 

would be allowed up to one minute 

after bird ingestion. After one minute, 

the engine would be required to 

demonstrate at least 50 percent takeoff 

thrust. The FAA notes that current MFB 

testing, which simulates takeoff 

conditions, does not allow a reduction 

below 50 percent takeoff thrust. If this 

condition is present for only one minute 

during one of the post-takeoff phases of 

flight, it would not result in an unsafe 

condition because a pilot would have 

more time to respond to this issue 

without hazard. Requiring the engine to 

operate satisfactorily for one minute 

without throttle movement will ensure 

that the engine will not stall or shut 

down in the time it takes the pilot to 

understand that the engine has ingested 

a bird. 

The proposed requirements of the first 

condition above are intended to 

simulate the worst threat to the engine 

core in expected operating conditions. 

The maximum airspeed allowed below 

10,000 feet is 250-knots indicated 

airspeed. Higher airspeed corresponds 

to less time for a bird to be in contact 

with the fan blades, reducing the 

likelihood that the bird would be 

centrifuged (moved radially outward) 

away from the core. Thus a test where 

the bird is fired at a higher speed is 

more likely to result in the bird going 

into the core as intended. The altitude, 

3,000 feet AGL, was chosen for two 

reasons: (1) 91 percent of bird ingestion 

events occur at or below 3,000 feet AGL 

and (2) during typical takeoff and climb 

profiles, engine speeds are increased 

and the aircraft climbs quickly after 

reaching 3,000 feet AGL. The post-test 

run-on requirements for the climb point 

would be the same as the existing LFB 

test (§ 33.76(d)(5)). The LFB post-test 

run-on requirements were chosen 

because the major threat to the engine 

core happens away from the airport 

when the airplane is well above the 

ground. 

The second test condition, should the 

applicant determine that no bird mass 

will enter the core during the test at the 

climb condition, must be successfully 

conducted at a speed of 200-knots 

indicated airspeed, with the engine fan 

set at the lowest expected mechanical 

fan speed while the airplane is 

descending through 3,000 feet AGL on 

approach to landing. The post-test runon requirements would consist of the 

final seven minutes of the existing LFB 

20-minute post-ingestion run-on 

requirement (§ 33.76(d)(5)) based on the 

assumption that the airplane would 

already be lined up with the runway 

during this phase of descent. 

The conditions for the approach test 

point are based on a typical aircraft 

approach profile. The post-test run-on 

requirements for the approach test point 

were selected based on the airplane 

approach being lined up with the 

runway and ready for landing. In 

addition, the possibility of having a 

multi-engine power loss (more than 50 

percent loss per engine) on approach, 

combined with another simultaneous 

event that could prevent a safe landing, 

is considered extremely improbable. 

Finally, the approach test point would 

be run only if the engine has been 

designed to centrifuge all bird material 

away from the core of the engine during 

the takeoff and climb phases of flight. 

This test point would reduce the total 

risk of power loss from engine core bird 

ingestion. 

Additional bird ingestion testing at 

the 200-knot approach condition would 

ensure that, if the engine is designed to 

centrifuge all bird material away from 

the core flow path at takeoff and climb 

conditions (which is beneficial), then 

engine core capability to ingest bird 

material would still be tested. This is 

because an engine that centrifuges bird 

material away from the core at the 250- 

knot climb condition may not be able to 

centrifuge away the same amount of 

bird material at the lower (200-knot) 

speed approach condition. 

The FAA notes that this proposed rule 

may result in the engine manufacturer 

having to run an additional bird 

ingestion test. If the manufacturer 

discovers during the 250-knot climb test 

that no bird material enters the engine 

core, then it is required to run the 200- 

knot approach test. However, the FAA 

anticipates the two-test scenario is 

unlikely, because manufacturers would 

evaluate the design of its engine prior to 

engine bird ingestion testing. Thus, a 

manufacturer would be able to 

determine, prior to commencing 

certification testing, whether their 

engine will centrifuge all bird material 

away from the core. Based on this 

determination, the manufacturer would 

select the appropriate bird ingestion test 

(either the 250-knot climb or 200-knot 

approach test) proposed in this rule. 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) has notified the FAA that it 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
31484 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

8The FAA uses a 27-year period of analysis since 

it represents one complete cycle of actions affected 

by the proposed rule. One life cycle extends 

through the time required for certification, 

production of the engines, engine installation, 

active aircraft service, and retirement of the 

engines. 

intends to incorporate requirements 

similar to those proposed here into its 

engine bird ingestion rule, CS–E 800. 

Incorporating the proposed test 

conditions into § 33.76 would 

harmonize FAA requirements with 

EASA requirements and ensure that 

applicants would only need to comply 

with one set of regulations. 

Furthermore, incorporating these 

changes would prevent confusion 

within the FAA and EASA when 

validating engines developed under 

each other’s regulations. 

With respect to the NTSB’s 

recommendation to apply the LFB 

requirement to engines with inlet areas 

less than 2.5 square meters (3,875 

square inches), the evidence from the 

Flight 1549 accident did not indicate a 

deficiency in current bird ingestion 

requirements for the fan blades. The 

Phase II report supports the FAA’s 

conclusion that for engines with inlets 

of less than 2.5 square meters (3,875 

square inches), a LFB test requirement 

is not necessary to meet the safety 

objective of preventing catastrophic 

effects from fan blade failure, for 

engines of that size. 

The FAA also considered whether to 

increase the required size of the bird 

aimed at the core during the MFB test 

as recommended by the NTSB. The FAA 

evaluated the relative effects of 

ingesting a MFB at the new proposed 

climb condition, against a LFB at the 

take-off condition in the current 

regulation (§ 33.76(d)). The LFB 

condition resulted in a smaller mass 

fraction of the bird entering the core 

(0.39 versus 0.52 at the MFB condition). 

However, in terms of mass, a LFB fired 

into the core resulted in a 20 percent 

higher total mass into the core than the 

MFB. The FAA determined that the 

difference in impact energy delivered to 

the core inlet was insignificant between 

the LFB and MFB ingestion conditions 

(±2 percent). This is a result of the 

slower aircraft and engine fan rotor 

speed associated with the LFB ingestion 

criteria. For this reason, this proposed 

rule would not change the current LFB 

requirement (§ 33.76(d)). 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct 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; 

current value is $155 million). This 

portion of the preamble summarizes the 

FAA’s analysis of the economic impacts 

of this proposed rule. The FAA suggest 

readers seeking greater detail read the 

full regulatory evaluation, a copy of 

which the FAA placed in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined that this proposed rule: 

(1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) 

is not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is 

‘‘non-significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; (5) would not create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States; and (6) 

would not impose an unfunded 

mandate on state, local, or tribal 

governments, or on the private sector by 

exceeding the threshold identified 

above. These analyses are summarized 

below. 

I. Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule 

The FAA proposes the addition of a 

new test requirement to the engine bird 

ingestion airworthiness regulation. This 

new requirement would ensure that 

engines can ingest the medium flocking 

birds into the engine core at climb 

conditions. The ingestion of small and 

medium size birds can cause thrust loss 

from core engine bird ingestion if 

enough bird mass enters the engine 

core, which in turn can cause accidents 

or costly flight diversions. This 

proposed rule would add to the 

certification requirements of turbine 

engines a requirement that 

manufacturers must show that their 

engine cores can continue to operate 

after ingesting a medium sized bird 

while operating at a lower fan speed 

associated with climb out or landing. 

Engine manufacturers have the 

capability of producing such engines. 

The FAA estimates the annualized 

cost of the proposed rule to be $4 

million, or $52 million over 27 years 

(discounted at 7%).8 The FAA estimates 

annualized benefits of $5 million, or $61 

million over 27 years. The following 

table summarizes the benefits and costs 

of this proposed rule. 

SUMMARY OF BENEFITS AND COSTS

[$Millions] * 

Impact 

27-Year total present value Annualized 

7% 3% 7% 3% 

Benefits ............................................................................................................ $61.0 $100.6 $5.1 $5.5 

Costs ................................................................................................................ 51.5 71.5 4.3 3.9 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................. 9.4 29.1 0.8 1.6 

* Estimates may not total due to rounding. The FAA uses discount rates of seven and three percent based on OMB guidance. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31485 

9Source: http://www.manta.com. 

10Ratio = annualized cost/annual revenue = 

$557,459/$74,800,000 = 0.7 percent. 

Furthermore, this proposed rule 

would address two engine-related safety 

recommendations that the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

issued to the FAA: (1) A–10–64 and (2) 

A–10–65. 

ii. Who is potentially affected by this 

rule? 

Aircraft operators and engine 

manufacturers. 

iii. Assumptions 

• The analysis is conducted in 

constant dollars with 2016 as the base 

year. 

• Present value estimate follows OMB 

guidance of a 7 percent and a 3 percent 

discount rate. 

• The analysis period is 27 years with 

10 years of new engine certificates. 

• Based on the actual production 

numbers of a common airline engine, it 

is estimated that about 220 engines are 

produced per year per certification. 

• The FAA estimates that the average 

life of an engine is 27,500 cycles 

(flights) and that engines fly on average 

1,748 flights per year. Therefore, the 

estimated average service life of an 

engine is about 16 years. 

• The FAA estimates the average fuel 

consumption will increase by $750 per 

year per aircraft. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of 

regulatory issuance that agencies shall 

endeavor, consistent with the objective 

of the rule and of applicable statutes, to 

fit regulatory and informational 

requirements to the scale of the 

business, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve that principle, 

the RFA requires agencies to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions. 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 proposed or final 

rule would have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. If the agency determines that it 

would, the agency must prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis as 

described in the Act. Two groups would 

be affected by this rule: aircraft 

operators and engine manufacturers. 

The FAA believes that this proposed 

rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on small aircraft 

operators. Affected operators would 

incur higher fuel burn costs due to 

increase in engine weight (heavier 

blading/components) and resultant 

consequent increase in total aircraft 

weight. The FAA estimates fuel burn 

costs of $750 per year per aircraft, 

which would not result in a significant 

economic impact for small aircraft 

operators. 

Similarly, the FAA believes that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on engine 

manufacturers. The FAA identified one 

out of five engine manufacturers that 

meets the Small Business 

Administration definition of a small 

entity. The annual revenue estimate for 

this manufacturer is about $75 million.9

The FAA then compared that 

manufacturer’s revenue with its 

annualized compliance cost. The FAA 

expects that the manufacturer’s 

projected annualized cost of complying 

with this rule would be 0.7 percent of 

its annual revenue,10 which is not a 

significant economic impact. 

If an agency determines that a 

rulemaking will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

head of the agency may so certify under 

section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as 

provided in section 605(b), the head of 

the FAA certifies that this rulemaking 

will not result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. 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 determined that it has legitimate 

domestic safety objectives and would 

harmonize with forthcoming EASA 

standards. Accordingly, this proposed 

rule is in compliance with the Trade 

Agreements Act. 

D. 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 

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 $155 

million in lieu of $100 million. This 

proposed rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

E. 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. 

According to the 1995 amendments to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 

1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. 

The FAA has determined that there 

would be no new requirement for 

information collection associated with 

this proposed rule. 

F. International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these proposed 

regulations. The proposed regulation is 

harmonized with changes the European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) plans to 

make to its certification specifications. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1F 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
31486 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

paragraph 5–6.6(f) and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

H. Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3213) requires the FAA, when 

modifying its regulations in a manner 

affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to 

consider the extent to which Alaska is 

not served by transportation modes 

other than aviation, and to establish 

appropriate regulatory distinctions. The 

FAA has determined that this rule 

would not affect intrastate aviation in 

Alaska. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principals and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has determined that this action 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, or the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, and, 

therefore, would not have federalism 

implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

FAA has determined that it would not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and would not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

C. Executive Order 13609, International 

Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

(77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes 

international regulatory cooperation to 

meet shared challenges involving 

health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policy and agency 

responsibilities of Executive Order 

13609, Promoting International 

Regulatory Cooperation. The FAA has 

determined that this action would 

eliminate differences between U.S. 

aviation standards and those of other 

civil aviation authorities, by ensuring 

that § 33.76 remains harmonized with 

EASA CS–E 800. 

D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

Executive Order 13771 titled 

‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs,’’ directs that, unless 

prohibited by law, whenever an 

executive department or agency 

publicly proposes for notice and 

comment or otherwise promulgates a 

new regulation, it shall identify at least 

two existing regulations to be repealed. 

In addition, any new incremental costs 

associated with new regulations shall, to 

the extent permitted by law, be offset by 

the elimination of existing costs. Only 

those rules deemed significant under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ are 

subject to these requirements. 

This proposed rule is not expected to 

be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action 

because this proposed rule is not 

significant under E.O. 12866. 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

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. To 

ensure the docket does not contain 

duplicate comments, commenters 

should send only one copy of written 

comments, or if comments are filed 

electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. Commenters must 

identify the docket or notice number of 

this rulemaking. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments received, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rule. Before acting on this 

action, the FAA will consider all 

comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The FAA 

will consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. The agency may 

change this proposal in light of the 

comments it receives. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information: Commenters should not 

file proprietary or confidential business 

information in the docket. Such 

information must be sent or delivered 

directly to the person identified in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this document, and marked as 

proprietary or confidential. If submitting 

information on a disk or CD ROM, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD ROM, and 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

proprietary or confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, the agency does not 

place it in the docket. It is held in a 

separate file to which the public does 

not have access, and the FAA places a 

note in the docket that it has received 

it. If the FAA receives a request to 

examine or copy this information, it 

treats it as any other request under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552). The FAA process such a request 

under Department of Transportation 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from 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.access.gpo.fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained 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. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33 

Bird ingestion. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend chapter I 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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31487 

■ 2. Amend § 33.76 by revising 

paragraph (a)(1) and adding paragraph 

(e) to read as follows: 

§ 33.76 Bird ingestion. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Except as specified in paragraph 

(d) or (e) of this section, all ingestion 

tests must be conducted with the engine 

stabilized at no less than 100-percent 

takeoff power or thrust, for test day 

ambient conditions prior to the 

ingestion. In addition, the 

demonstration of compliance must 

account for engine operation at sea level 

takeoff conditions on the hottest day 

that a minimum engine can achieve 

maximum rated takeoff thrust or power. 

* * * * * 

(e) Core engine flocking bird test. 

Except as provided in paragraph (e)(4) 

of this section, for turbofan engines, an 

engine test must be performed in 

accordance with either paragraph (e)(1) 

or (2) of this section. The test specified 

in paragraph (e)(2) may be used to 

satisfy this requirement only if testing or 

validated analysis shows that no bird 

material will be ingested into the engine 

core during the test under the 

conditions specified in paragraph (e)(1). 

(1) 250-knot climb core engine 

flocking bird test: 

(i) Test requirements are as follows: 

(A) Before ingestion, the engine must 

be stabilized at the mechanical rotor 

speed of the first exposed fan stage or 

stages that, on a standard day, produces 

the lowest expected power or thrust 

required during climb through 3,000 

feet above ground level. 

(B) Bird weight must be the largest 

specified in Table 2 of this section for 

the engine inlet area. 

(C) Ingestion must be at 250-knots 

bird speed. 

(D) The bird must be aimed at the first 

exposed rotating fan stage or stages, at 

the blade airfoil height, as measured at 

the leading edge that will result in 

maximum bird material ingestion into 

the engine core. 

(ii) Ingestion of a flocking bird into 

the engine core under the conditions 

prescribed in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this 

section must not cause any of the 

following: 

(A) Sustained power or thrust 

reduction to less than 50 percent 

maximum rated takeoff power or thrust 

during the run-on segment specified 

under paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(B) of this 

section, that cannot be restored only by 

movement of the power lever. 

(B) Sustained power or thrust 

reduction to less than flight idle power 

or thrust during the run-on segment 

specified under paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(B) 

of this section. 

(C) Engine shutdown during the 

required run-on demonstration specified 

in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section. 

(D) Conditions specified in 

§ 33.75(g)(2). 

(iii) The following test schedule must 

be used (power lever movement 

between conditions must occur within 

10 seconds or less, unless otherwise 

noted): 

Note to paragraph (e)(1)(iii) introductory 

text: Durations specified are times at the 

defined conditions. 

(A) Ingestion. 

(B) Followed by 1 minute without 

power lever movement. 

(C) Followed by power lever 

movement to increase power or thrust to 

not less than 50 percent maximum rated 

takeoff power or thrust, if the initial bird 

ingestion resulted in a reduction in 

power or thrust below that level. 

(D) Followed by 13 minutes at not less 

than 50 percent maximum rated takeoff 

power or thrust. Power lever movement 

in this condition is unlimited. 

(E) Followed by 2 minutes at 30–35 

percent maximum rated takeoff power 

or thrust. Power lever movement in this 

condition is limited to 10 seconds or 

less. 

(F) Followed by 1 minute with power 

or thrust increased from that set in 

paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(E) of this section, by 

5–10 percent maximum rated takeoff 

power or thrust. 

(G) Followed by 2 minutes with 

power or thrust reduced from that set in 

paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(F) of this section, by 

5–10 percent maximum rated takeoff 

power or thrust. 

(H) Followed by 1 minute minimum 

at ground idle. 

(I) Followed by engine shutdown. 

(2) 200-knot approach flocking bird 

core engine test (performed only if test 

or analysis shows no bird material will 

be ingested into the core during the test 

at the conditions of paragraph (e)(1) of 

this section): 

(i) Test requirements are as follows: 

(A) Before ingestion, the engine must 

be stabilized at the mechanical rotor 

speed of the first exposed fan stage or 

stages when on a standard day the 

engine thrust is set at approach idle 

thrust when descending 3,000 feet 

above ground level. 

(B) Bird mass and weight must be the 

largest specified in Table 2 of this 

section for the engine inlet area. 

(C) Ingestion must be 200-knot bird 

speed. 

(D) Bird must be aimed at the first 

exposed rotating fan stage or stages, at 

the blade airfoil height measured at the 

leading edge that will result in 

maximum bird material ingestion into 

the engine core. 

(ii) Ingestion of a flocking bird into 

the engine core under the conditions 

prescribed in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this 

section may not cause any of the 

following: 

(A) Power or thrust reduction to less 

than flight idle power or thrust during 

the run-on segment specified under 

paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(B) of this section. 

(B) Engine shutdown during the 

required run-on demonstration specified 

in paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section. 

(C) Conditions specified in 

§ 33.75(g)(2). 

(iii) The following test schedule must 

be used (power lever movement 

between conditions must occur within 

10 seconds or less, unless otherwise 

noted): 

Note to paragraph (e)(2)(iii) introductory 

text: Durations specified are times at the 

defined conditions. 

(A) Ingestion. 

(B) Followed by 1 minute without 

power lever movement. 

(C) Followed by 2 minutes at 30–35 

percent maximum rated takeoff power 

or thrust. 

(D) Followed by 1 minute with power 

or thrust increased from that set in 

paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(C) of this section, by 

5–10 percent maximum rated takeoff 

power or thrust. 

(E) Followed by 2 minutes with power 

or thrust reduced from that set in 

paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(D) of this section, 

by 5–10 percent maximum rated takeoff 

power or thrust. 

(F) Followed by 1-minute minimum at 

ground idle. 

(G) Followed by engine shutdown. 

(3) Applicants must show that an 

unsafe condition will not result if any 

engine operating limit is exceeded 

during the run-on period. 

(4) The core engine flocking bird test 

of this paragraph (e) may be combined 

with the MFB test of paragraph (c) of 

this section, if the climb fan rotor speed 

calculated in paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section is within 1 percent of the first 

fan stage rotor speed required by 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section. As used 

in this paragraph (e)(4), ‘‘combined’’ 

means that, instead of separately 

conducting the tests specified in 

paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section, the 

test conducted under paragraph (c) of 

this section satisfies the requirements of 

this section if the bird aimed at the core 

of the engine meets the bird ingestion 

speed criteria of either: 

(i) Paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C) of this 

section; or 

(ii) Paragraph (e)(2)(i)(C) of this 

section if testing or validated analysis 

shows that no bird material will be 

ingested into the engine core during the 

test. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
31488 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 21, 

2018. 

David W. Hempe, 

Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory 

Operations, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14270 Filed 7–5–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2018–0547; Product 

Identifier 2017–NM–091–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc., Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC–8–400 

series airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by reports of wear on fuel 

couplings, bonding springs, and sleeves 

as well as fuel tube end ferrules and fuel 

component end ferrules. This proposed 

AD would require repetitive inspections 

of the existing clamshell coupling 

bonding wires, fuel couplings, and 

associated sleeves for certain criteria 

and replacement as necessary. This 

proposed AD would also require 

repetitive inspections of the fuel tube 

end ferrules, fuel component end 

ferrules, and ferrule o-ring flanges for 

damage and wear, and rework as 

necessary. We are proposing this AD to 

address the unsafe condition on these 

products. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by August 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., QSeries Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt 

Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, 

Canada; telephone: 416–375–4000; fax: 

416–375–4539; email: thd.qseries@

aero.bombardier.com; internet: http://

www.bombardier.com. You may view 

this service information at the FAA, 

Transport Standards Branch, 2200 

South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– 

0547; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this NPRM, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

the Docket Operations office (telephone: 

800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony Flores, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion and Program Management 

Section, FAA, Chicago ACO Branch, 

Room 107, 2300 East Devon Avenue, 

Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone 847– 

294–7140; fax 847–294–7834; email: 

anthony.flores@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposal. Send your comments to 

an address listed under the ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2018–0547; Product Identifier 2017– 

NM–091–AD’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this NPRM. We will consider 

all comments received by the closing 

date and may amend this NPRM based 

on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this NPRM. 

Discussion 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation 

(TCCA), which is the aviation authority 

for Canada, has issued Canadian AD 

CF–2017–04R1, dated May 26, 2017 

(referred to after this as the Mandatory 

Continuing Airworthiness Information, 

or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe 

condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., 

Model DHC–8–400 series airplanes. The 

MCAI states: 

Some operators have reported 

discoloration and corrosion of Hydraflow 

part number 14J26 fuel couplings. Removal 

of the couplings during scheduled 

maintenance inspection has also shown signs 

of wear on the fuel tube end ferrules, fuel 

component end ferrules, coupling bonding 

springs, and coupling sleeves. These issues 

affect the integrity of the electrical bonding 

paths throughout the fuel lines and 

components, which in turn may lead to 

lightning strike induced fuel tank ignition. 

The initial issue of this [Canadian] AD 

mandated the [detailed] inspection [for wear 

or damage] and repair or replacement, as 

required, of affected fuel couplings and 

sleeves, fuel tubes, and fuel components, as 

well as the collection of wear data, to 

mitigate the risk of lightning strike induced 

fuel tank ignition. 

Since the initial issue of this [Canadian] 

AD, Transport Canada has become aware that 

the compliance timeframe of Part I of the 

initial issue of this [Canadian] AD is not 

suitable for new aeroplanes entering into 

service from the production line. Revision 1 

of this [Canadian] AD updates Part I of the 

initial issue of this [Canadian] AD 

accordingly, and mandates the [repetitive] 

inspection and repair or replacement, as 

required, of affected fuel couplings and 

sleeves, fuel tubes, and fuel components, as 

well as the collection of wear data, to 

mitigate the risk of lightning strike induced 

fuel tank ignition. 

Required actions include replacement 

of clamshell coupling bonding wires, 

fuel couplings and associated sleeves 

and rework (repair, replace, or blend, as 

applicable) of fuel tube end ferrules, 

fuel component end ferrules, and ferrule 

o-ring flanges. You may examine the 

MCAI in the AD docket on the internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2018–0547. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

Bombardier has issued Service 

Bulletin 84–28–20, Revision C, dated 

April 28, 2017. This service information 

describes procedures for inspections of 

the existing clamshell coupling bonding 

wires, fuel couplings, and associated 

sleeves for certain criteria (wear and 

damage, including discoloration, worn 

coating, scuffing and grooves) and 

replacement. This service information 

also describes procedures for 

inspections of the fuel tube end ferrules, 

fuel component end ferrules, and ferrule 

o-ring flanges for damage and wear, and 

rework. This service information is 

reasonably available because the 

interested parties have access to it 

through their normal course of business 

or by the means identified in the 

ADDRESSES section. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS