This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

48279 

Vol. 73, No. 161 

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 33 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27311, Amendment 

No. 33–26] 

RIN 2120–AI94 

Airworthiness Standards; Engine 

Control System Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending type 

certification standards for aircraft 

engine control systems. These changes 

reflect current industry practices and 

harmonize FAA standards with those 

recently adopted by the European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). These 

changes establish uniform standards for 

all engine control systems for aircraft 

engines certificated by both U.S. and 

European countries and will simplify 

airworthiness approvals for import and 

export. 

DATES: This amendment becomes 

effective October 20, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this final 

rule contact Gary Horan, Engine and 

Propeller Directorate Standards Staff, 

ANE–111, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, 

Massachusetts 01803–5299; telephone 

(781) 238–7164, fax (781) 238–7199, 

e-mail gary.horan@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 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 proposed rule is within the scope 

of that authority because it updates 

existing regulations for aircraft engine 

control systems. 

Background 

U.S. and European aircraft engine 

regulations differ in several areas 

including engine controls. Certifying to 

a common set of requirements 

(harmonization) benefits industry and 

regulators because of the lower costs 

associated with a single set of 

regulations. 

The FAA, in cooperation with the 

Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), the 

European rulemaking authority before 

EASA, established an international 

engine certification study group to 

compare part 33 with the Joint Aviation 

Requirements—Engines (JAR–E), the 

European requirements for engines. As 

a follow-on, the Aviation Rulemaking 

Advisory Committee, through its Engine 

Harmonization Working Group (EHWG), 

looked at harmonizing the engine 

control requirements of part 33 and the 

JAR–E. This final rule reflects the agreed 

harmonization between the FAA and 

the JAA that was subsequently adopted 

by EASA as CS–E (Certification 

Specifications for Engines) 50. 

Summary of the NPRM 

A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) was published on April 11, 

2007 (72 FR 18148) that proposed 

changes to §§ 33.5, 33.7, 33.27, 33.28, 

33.29, 33.53, and 33.91. The comment 

period for the NPRM closed on July 10, 

2007. These proposed changes would 

harmonize FAA and EASA regulations 

for the referenced sections. 

Summary of the Final Rule 

This final rule on Engine Control 

System requirements contains no 

significant changes from the NPRM 

published on April 11, 2007. We made 

minor changes to several sections to 

ensure clarity and better harmonization 

with EASA regulations. This rule 

harmonizes FAA and EASA regulations 

for portions of §§ 33.5, 33.7, 33.27, 

33.28, 33.29, 33.53, and 33.91. 

Summary of Comments 

Five commenters, including an 

aircraft engine manufacturer and a 

manufacturer of light business jets, 

responded to the NPRM request for 

comments. The commenters supported 

the proposed rule while suggesting 

minor changes. 

The FAA received comments on the 

following general areas of the proposal: 

• Instructions for installing the 

engine control transitions 

• Engine control system failures 

• Overspeed protection 

• System Safety Assessment (SSA) 

interfaces between engine and aircraft 

• Programmable logic devices 

• Instrument connection 

Discussion of the Final Rule 

Below is a more detailed discussion of 

the rule as it relates to the comments we 

received to the proposal. 

Instructions for Installing and Operating 

the Engine 

We revised § 33.5, Instruction manual 

for installing and operating the engine, 

to require applicants to list in the 

installation instructions the instruments 

necessary for satisfactory control of the 

engine. The new § 33.5 also requires 

that the limits of accuracy and transient 

response required for satisfactory engine 

operation be identified so the suitability 

of the instruments as installed can be 

assessed. 

General Electric (GE) indicated the 

definition of the reliability, accuracy, 

and transient response requirements 

should not be required in part 33 and 

would be more appropriate for 

evaluation as part of compliance with 

part 25. 

During the design, development and 

certification of an engine, the engine 

manufacturer must determine the 

specific information the pilot needs to 

control the engine. The engine 

manufacturer must convey this 

information, which includes necessary 

measurement data, to the installer. In 

addition, the FAA notes that the engine 

manufacturer, rather than the installer, 

should know the transient capability 

needed by the display to accurately 

represent the engine behavior. We did 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
48280 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

not change the final rule due to this 

comment. 

In the final rule, we are adding a 

paragraph (b)(5) that was originally 

proposed in the NPRM as paragraph 

(b)(4). We are doing this because 

another final rule, ‘‘Rotorcraft Turbine 

Engines One-Engine-Inoperative (OEI) 

Ratings, Type Certification Standards’’

has already added paragraph (b)(4) to 

this section. 

Engine Ratings and Operating 

Limitations 

The revised § 33.7 requires that the 

overall limits of accuracy of the engine 

control system and the necessary 

instruments, as defined in § 33.5(a)(6), 

be considered when determining engine 

performance and operating limitations. 

Sino Swearingen, a business jet 

manufacturer, suggested any 

assumptions made relative to the 

accuracy of installer-supplied 

instruments should be stated as 

assumptions in the installation manual. 

The FAA believes this level of detail is 

excessive for a regulatory requirement. 

Therefore, we did not change the final 

rule due to this comment. 

GE asserted that defining the accuracy 

limits for the aircraft-provided 

instruments should be a task for the 

airframe manufacturer and should be 

part of compliance with part 25 not part 

33. 

We find the engine manufacturer 

needs to determine the accuracy limits 

for aircraft-provided instruments and 

provide this information to the installer. 

Without this information, it is unclear if 

it is critical that a given parameter must 

be measured and displayed with an 

accuracy of 1% or as much as 20%, 

which is a significant difference to the 

installer. We did not change the final 

rule due to this comment. 

None of the above comments to the 

proposed § 33.7 reflect the complexity 

of integration encountered during 

installation of an engine on an aircraft. 

Sections 33.7 and 33.5(a)(6) require that 

the engine manufacturer and the 

installer account for the accuracies and 

the documentation of these accuracies 

for the overall system as installed. This 

is to ensure the engine, as installed, can 

be operated within its limitations. 

Engine Control Systems 

We revised the title and contents of 

§ 33.28 to apply to all types of engine 

control systems, including 

hydromechanical and reciprocating 

engine controls. Formerly, § 33.28 

applied only to electrical and electronic 

engine control systems. 

Engine Control Systems Validation 

The revised § 33.28(b) prescribes 

requirements for engine control system 

validation. Section 33.28(b)(1) requires 

that applicants demonstrate their engine 

control system performs its intended 

function in the declared operating 

conditions, including the environmental 

conditions and flight envelope. Section 

33.28(b)(1)(ii) also requires that the 

engine control system comply with 

§§ 33.51, 33.65, and 33.73, as 

appropriate, under all likely system 

inputs and allowable engine power or 

thrust demands. 

GE found proposed § 33.28(b)(1)(ii) 

difficult to understand. GE suggested 

§ 33.28(b)(1)(ii) be revised to read: 

‘‘Complies with the operability 

requirements of §§ 33.51, 33.65 and 

33.73, as appropriate, under all likely 

system inputs and allowable engine 

power or thrust demands, unless it can 

be demonstrated that failure of the 

control function results in a nondispatchable condition in the intended 

application.’’ The FAA agrees and has 

revised the final rule to read as the 

commenter suggested. 

Control Transitions 

We revised § 33.28(c) to clarify the 

requirements for control transitions, 

including crew notification, when fault 

accommodation is implemented through 

alternate modes, channel changes, or 

changes from primary to back-up 

systems. 

GE suggested that revised 

§ 33.28(c)(1)(iii) requires the action of 

the flight crew be described in the 

engine operating instructions if the crew 

must respond to changes in control 

modes. GE claimed the indication of the 

mode change to the cockpit crew should 

be included in the compliance with part 

33 but the action required by the crew 

should be reserved for compliance with 

part 25. GE also noted § 33.28(c)(2) 

requires the magnitude of a thrust 

change associated with a control mode 

change be described in the engine 

installation manual. GE believes it is 

only necessary for this information to be 

included in the engine installation 

manual if the flight crew is required to 

initiate, respond, or be aware of this 

mode change. 

We note the intent of these changes to 

§ 33.28(c) is to ensure the installer is 

aware of any engine or engine control 

operational differences and the 

recommended differences in 

procedures. We have observed this 

problem in some previous engine 

installations. The inclusion of these 

actions in the operating instructions 

draws the attention of the installer to 

this condition so that the crew action 

must be evaluated—and be found 

acceptable—under aircraft certification. 

This recommended crew action in the 

engine installation manual is a 

guideline for the installer and does not 

replace requirements for crew action 

that are normally included in the 

aircraft operations manual. We did not 

change the final rule due to this 

comment. 

Engine Control System Failures 

Revised § 33.28(d) consists of control 

system failure requirements formerly 

located in § 33.28(c). Section 33.28(d)(1) 

addresses integrity requirements, such 

as Loss of Thrust Control (LOTC)/Loss 

of Power Control (LOPC) requirements 

consistent with the intended 

application. 

Section 33.28(d)(2) requires the 

engine control system be designed and 

constructed so that in its full-up 

configuration it is single fault tolerant, 

as determined by the Administrator, for 

electrical or electronic failures with 

respect to LOTC/LOPC events. We 

received no comments on proposed 

§ 33.28(d)(2). 

Sino Swearingen pointed out 

§ 33.28(d)(1) requires the applicant to 

design a system that will achieve an 

LOTC rate compatible with intended 

application. However, Sino Swearingen 

notes that different aircraft categories 

(normal, commuter, transport, 

rotorcraft) have different levels of safety, 

associated reliability requirements, and 

software verification and validation 

requirements. Sino Swearingen asserted 

the ‘‘intended application’’ should, 

therefore, be specified in the engine 

installation instructions. 

We do not believe this level of 

specificity is appropriate for a 

regulation, but we will provide 

appropriate LOTC/LOPC rates and 

levels of reliability in the advisory 

material that accompanies the rule. 

System Safety Assessment 

The revised § 33.28(e) requires a 

System Safety Assessment (SSA) for the 

engine control system. The SSA must 

identify faults or failures that would 

have harmful effects on the engine. 

GE expressed concern that the 

conditions to be analyzed for 

compliance with § 33.28(e) are not 

clearly related to safety, as would be 

implied by the requirement that an SSA 

be done. The commenter believes the 

listed conditions would have a minor 

effect for a typical installation. 

We note that under the SSA, in 

complying with §§ 33.28 and 33.75, 

applicants are required to identify faults 

or failures that would cause major, 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 48281 

hazardous and catastrophic engine 

effects. These types of faults would 

require an SSA and a reliability 

assessment. For example, faults that can 

lead to an LOTC and subsequent high 

thrust or an uncontrolled overspeed can 

cause a hazardous engine effect. Faults 

such as thrust in the wrong direction or 

excessive drag (propeller airplanes) or 

‘thrust failed high and not controllable’

can produce a catastrophic aircraft 

effect. We find, therefore, that the 

conditions to be analyzed for an SSA 

under § 33.28(e) are clearly related to 

safety. We did not change the final rule 

due to this comment. 

GE also claimed the phrase ‘‘an effect 

on engine operability’’ in § 33.28(e) is 

not ‘‘bounded.’’ The commenter felt this 

phrase should be modified to ‘‘an effect 

on engine operability producing a surge 

or stall * * *’’

The suggested phrasing is clearer and 

places the appropriate boundaries on 

the statement. We, therefore, revised 

§ 33.28(e) in the final rule to include the 

suggested phrase. 

GE commented that requiring an SSA 

addressing every single data element 

would impose additional costs to 

applicants. This final rule requires an 

aggregate SSA, not a separate analysis 

on every single data element. The SSA 

must identify faults or failures that 

would have harmful effects on the 

engine. It has been used in the 

certification process for the last several 

years and is already an existing 

requirement in Europe. Recent examples 

include certification of Pratt & 

Whitney’s PW6000, Rolls-Royce’s 

Model 250, and General Electric GEnx 

engines. We find that this manufacturer 

will not face additional cost from 

complying with this requirement 

because it already meets the existing 

European requirements. 

Protection Systems 

The new § 33.28(f) requires protective 

functions, such as overspeed protection 

systems, that preserve rotor integrity. 

Section 33.28(f)(2) adds a requirement 

that the design of electronic overspeed 

protection systems include a means for 

testing at least once per engine start/ 

stop cycle to establish the availability of 

the system’s function. 

GE commented that the frequency at 

which the overspeed protection must be 

tested should be determined based on 

the application, the possible failure 

modes, and the potential of those failure 

modes. 

We have found the requirement to test 

overspeed protection at least once per 

engine start/stop cycle is appropriate 

based on safety considerations. We note 

that if overspeed protection is not 

available, then exposure of an engine to 

a single failure could result in 

uncontrolled overspeed. We made no 

changes to the final rule due to this 

comment. We will, however, clarify in 

the advisory material that will 

accompany this rule that testing the 

overspeed system depends on a number 

of design and architecture factors. For 

example, the system architecture may 

implement a number of protection paths 

that have to be individually tested to 

confirm the system’s functionality. 

Thus, while the test frequency is one 

flight cycle, it may take more than one 

flight cycle to complete the test of the 

overspeed protection system. 

Aircraft-Supplied Data 

The new § 33.28(h) prescribes 

requirements for single failures leading 

to loss, interruption, or corruption of 

aircraft-supplied data or data shared 

between engines. We modified the 

former fault accommodation 

requirement for loss of all aircraftsupplied data to require detection and 

accommodation for single failures 

leading to loss, interruption, or 

corruption of aircraft-supplied data. 

This accommodation must not result in 

an unacceptable change in thrust or 

power or an unacceptable change in 

engine operating and starting 

characteristics. 

GE suggested the phrase ‘‘as part of 

certification documentation’’ be added 

to § 33.28(h)(2) to avoid confusion since 

other parts of this rule define what 

needs to be documented in the 

installation manual. FAA experience 

with previous engine programs has been 

that information on the effects of 

failures on engine power or thrust, 

engine operability, and starting 

characteristics is needed in the engine 

installation instructions to ensure that it 

is clearly communicated by the 

applicant to the installer. As a result of 

this comment, we modified the final 

rule to clarify that this information must 

be documented in the engine 

installation instructions. 

Also, Sino Swearingen expressed 

concern that § 33.28(h)(2) does not 

define the unacceptable change in thrust 

or power or ‘‘allowable degradation’’ in 

engine operating and starting 

characteristics. We find that including 

this information in the rule would be 

overly prescriptive. Unacceptable 

changes or allowable degradation often 

depend on the installation. We find, 

therefore, that it is more appropriate to 

explain unacceptable changes in thrust, 

power, or engine operating and starting 

characteristics in the advisory material 

that accompanies this rule. We did not 

change the final rule due to this 

comment. 

Aircraft-Supplied Electrical Power 

The new § 33.28(i) establishes 

requirements for the response of the 

engine control system to the loss or 

interruption of electrical power 

supplied from the aircraft. Section 

33.28(i) applies to all electrical power 

supplied to the engine control system, 

including that supplied from the aircraft 

power system and from the dedicated 

power source, if required. 

GE commented the applicant should 

be able to identify the characteristics of 

any electrical power supplied from the 

aircraft to the engine control system for 

starting and operating the engine in any 

document that is part of the certification 

process rather than in the engine 

instructions for installation, as required 

by the proposed rule. 

The FAA has observed a significant 

number of problems caused by 

inadequate communication between the 

applicant and the installer regarding 

aircraft-supplied electrical power. We 

have found it is critical that this level 

of detail be clearly communicated by 

the applicant to the installer. The FAA 

notes also that at the time of engine 

certification, it is not always clear who 

the ultimate installer(s) will be. 

Providing these details, therefore, in the 

engine instructions for installation will 

help to ensure the installer has the 

needed information. We did not change 

the final rule due to this comment. 

Programmable Logic Devices 

The new § 33.28(m) establishes safety 

requirements for programmable logic 

devices (PLDs) that include applicationspecific integrated circuits and 

programmable gate arrays. The rule 

requires that development of the devices 

and associated encoded logic used in 

their design and implementation be at a 

level equal to the hazard level of the 

functions performed via the devices. 

EASA suggested that the FAA should 

clarify the rule to ensure it is not the 

FAA’s intent to mandate that the type 

certificate (TC) holder design and 

implement PLD logic. EASA argued the 

TC holder should only be required to 

provide evidence that these devices 

have been developed using a method, 

for example DO–254, that is acceptable 

to the FAA. 

We agree with EASA that the 

proposed language might be 

misinterpreted. We, therefore, have 

revised § 33.28(m) in the final rule to 

indicate the applicant must provide 

evidence that PLDs have been 

developed in accordance with a method 

approved by the FAA. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
48282 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Instrument Connection 

We revised § 33.29 by adding new 

paragraphs (e) through (h). The new 

§ 33.29(e) requires that applicants 

provide instrumentation necessary to 

ensure engine operation in compliance 

with the engine operating limitations. 

The new § 33.29(f) requires that 

applicants provide a means to minimize 

the possibility of incorrect fitting of 

instruments, sensors and connectors. 

The new § 33.29(g) reduces the 

probability of faults propagating from 

the instrumentation and monitoring 

functions to the control functions, or 

vice versa, by prescribing that the 

probability of propagation of faults be 

consistent with the criticality of the 

function performed. The new § 33.29(h) 

adds requirements for instrumentation 

that enables the flight crew to monitor 

the functioning of the turbine case 

cooling system. 

Sino Swearingen agreed it is 

appropriate in § 33.29(f) to specify that 

the engine design should include means 

to prevent improper installation or ‘‘fit’’

of instruments, sensors and connectors. 

Sino Swearingen commented, however, 

that it is virtually impossible to consider 

the effects of multiple possible incorrect 

assembly and installation scenarios 

within the engine control system’s SSA 

especially since it must consider 

airplane-installed instruments to be 

comprehensive. 

The FAA notes the intent of this rule 

is to achieve an engine design where the 

fit of the installation will prevent an 

accidental incorrect assembly. When 

incorrect fit cannot be ensured, the SSA 

needs to address the effects of the 

incorrect assembly. The FAA is not 

intending to include aircraft-installed 

instruments in this assessment. We did 

not change the final rule due to this 

comment. 

Engine Overtemperature Test 

We did not propose changes to this 

section in the NPRM. We are, however, 

changing a reference in this section in 

the final rule from § 33.67(d) to 

§ 33.28(k) because this rule eliminates 

§ 33.67(d) and moves its contents to 

§ 33.28(k). We did not make any other 

changes to § 33.88 by this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

consider the impact of paperwork and 

other information collection burdens 

imposed on the public. We have 

determined there is no current or new 

requirement for information collection 

associated with this amendment. 

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. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these regulations. 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs 

each Federal agency propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a 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 also requires 

agencies to consider international 

standards and, where appropriate, use 

them as 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 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

annually (adjusted for inflation with 

base year of 1995). This portion of the 

preamble summarizes the FAA’s 

analysis of the economic impacts of this 

final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect, 

and the basis for it, be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. 

Presently, engine manufacturers must 

satisfy both United States and European 

requirements to certify and market part 

33 engines in both the United States and 

in Europe. Meeting two sets of 

certification requirements raises the cost 

of developing a new engine often with 

no increase in safety. In the interest of 

fostering international trade, lowering 

the cost of engine development, and 

making the certification process more 

efficient, the FAA, EASA, and 

manufacturers have worked to create to 

the maximum extent possible a single 

set of certification requirements 

accepted in both the United States and 

Europe. These efforts are referred to as 

harmonization. 

This final rule codifies current 

industry practices and harmonizes FAA 

requirements for aircraft engine control 

systems with similar requirements 

recently adopted by EASA, thereby 

simplifying airworthiness approvals for 

import and export. Similar international 

requirements reduce duplicative testing 

which will reduce certification costs. 

The FAA has not attempted to quantify 

the cost savings that may accrue due to 

this specific rule, beyond noting that 

while they may be minimal they 

contribute to harmonization savings. In 

addition, a potential for increased safety 

lies in having clearer and more explicit 

regulations. The agency concludes that 

there is consensus among potentially 

impacted manufacturers that savings 

will result, and further analysis is not 

required. The benefits of this final rule 

justify the costs and the existing level of 

safety will be preserved. 

Economic Summary 

The FAA has determined that the 

benefits of this final rule justify the 

costs. It is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined in section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 48283 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

During the comment period, one 

individual questioned our 

determination that the rule would not 

affect a substantial number of small 

entities. In the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, we found 

there would not be a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities and used the 

broadest category, ‘‘more than just a 

few,’’ in determining if a substantial 

number of small entities were impacted. 

There were no other comments on the 

potential effect on small businesses. 

Although there are engine 

manufacturers who qualify as small 

businesses based on Small Business 

Administration Size Standards, this rule 

reduces cost. Our final regulatory 

flexibility determination is that this 

final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Therefore, as the Acting FAA 

Administrator, I certify that this final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits Federal 

agencies from establishing any 

standards or engaging in related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

This final rule considers and 

incorporates an international standard 

as the basis of an FAA regulation. Thus 

this final rule complies with The Trade 

Agreements Act of 1979 and does not 

create unnecessary obstacles to 

international trade. 

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 

(adjusted annually for inflation with the 

base year 1995) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The level equivalent 

of $100 million in CY 1995, adjusted for 

inflation to CY 2007 levels by the 

Consumer Price Index for all Urban 

Consumers (CPI–U) as published by the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, is $136.1 

million. 

This final rule does not contain such 

a mandate. The requirements of Title II 

do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

have determined that this action will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, or the relationship between 

the national Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have federalism implications. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312d and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents using the 

Internet by—

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

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

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the amendment number or 

docket number of this rulemaking. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://docketsinfo.dot.gov. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires the FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. If 

you are a small entity and you have a 

question regarding this document, you 

may contact your local FAA official, or 

the person listed under the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the 

beginning of the preamble. You can find 

out more about SBREFA on the Internet 

at http://www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies/rulemaking/ 

sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Life-limited 

parts, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
48284 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 33—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 33 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702, 44704 

■ 2. Amend § 33.5 by adding new 

paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and 

(b)(5), to read as follows: 

§ 33.5 Instruction manual for installing and 

operating the engine. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(4) A definition of the physical and 

functional interfaces with the aircraft 

and aircraft equipment, including the 

propeller when applicable. 

(5) Where an engine system relies on 

components that are not part of the 

engine type design, the interface 

conditions and reliability requirements 

for those components upon which 

engine type certification is based must 

be specified in the engine installation 

instructions directly or by reference to 

appropriate documentation. 

(6) A list of the instruments necessary 

for control of the engine, including the 

overall limits of accuracy and transient 

response required of such instruments 

for control of the operation of the 

engine, must also be stated so that the 

suitability of the instruments as 

installed may be assessed. 

(b) * * * 

(5) A description of the primary and 

all alternate modes, and any back-up 

system, together with any associated 

limitations, of the engine control system 

and its interface with the aircraft 

systems, including the propeller when 

applicable. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 33.7 by adding new 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 33.7 Engine ratings and operating 

limitations. 

* * * * * 

(d) In determining the engine 

performance and operating limitations, 

the overall limits of accuracy of the 

engine control system and of the 

necessary instrumentation as defined in 

§ 33.5(a)(6) must be taken into account. 

■ 4. Amend § 33.27 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 33.27 Turbine, compressor, fan, and 

turbosupercharger rotors. 

* * * * * 

(b) The design and functioning of 

engine systems, instruments, and other 

methods, not covered under § 33.28 

must give reasonable assurance that 

those engine operating limitations that 

affect turbine, compressor, fan, and 

turbosupercharger rotor structural 

integrity will not be exceeded in service. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Revise § 33.28 to read as follows: 

§ 33.28 Engine control systems. 

(a) Applicability. These requirements 

are applicable to any system or device 

that is part of engine type design, that 

controls, limits, or monitors engine 

operation, and is necessary for the 

continued airworthiness of the engine. 

(b) Validation. 

(1) Functional aspects. The applicant 

must substantiate by tests, analysis, or a 

combination thereof, that the engine 

control system performs the intended 

functions in a manner which: 

(i) Enables selected values of relevant 

control parameters to be maintained and 

the engine kept within the approved 

operating limits over changing 

atmospheric conditions in the declared 

flight envelope; 

(ii) Complies with the operability 

requirements of §§ 33.51, 33.65 and 

33.73, as appropriate, under all likely 

system inputs and allowable engine 

power or thrust demands, unless it can 

be demonstrated that failure of the 

control function results in a nondispatchable condition in the intended 

application; 

(iii) Allows modulation of engine 

power or thrust with adequate 

sensitivity over the declared range of 

engine operating conditions; and 

(iv) Does not create unacceptable 

power or thrust oscillations. 

(2) Environmental limits. The 

applicant must demonstrate, when 

complying with §§ 33.53 or 33.91, that 

the engine control system functionality 

will not be adversely affected by 

declared environmental conditions, 

including electromagnetic interference 

(EMI), High Intensity Radiated Fields 

(HIRF), and lightning. The limits to 

which the system has been qualified 

must be documented in the engine 

installation instructions. 

(c) Control transitions. 

(1) The applicant must demonstrate 

that, when fault or failure results in a 

change from one control mode to 

another, from one channel to another, or 

from the primary system to the back-up 

system, the change occurs so that: 

(i) The engine does not exceed any of 

its operating limitations; 

(ii) The engine does not surge, stall, 

or experience unacceptable thrust or 

power changes or oscillations or other 

unacceptable characteristics; and 

(iii) There is a means to alert the flight 

crew if the crew is required to initiate, 

respond to, or be aware of the control 

mode change. The means to alert the 

crew must be described in the engine 

installation instructions, and the crew 

action must be described in the engine 

operating instructions; 

(2) The magnitude of any change in 

thrust or power and the associated 

transition time must be identified and 

described in the engine installation 

instructions and the engine operating 

instructions. 

(d) Engine control system failures. 

The applicant must design and 

construct the engine control system so 

that: 

(1) The rate for Loss of Thrust (or 

Power) Control (LOTC/LOPC) events, 

consistent with the safety objective 

associated with the intended 

application can be achieved; 

(2) In the full-up configuration, the 

system is single fault tolerant, as 

determined by the Administrator, for 

electrical or electronic failures with 

respect to LOTC/LOPC events; 

(3) Single failures of engine control 

system components do not result in a 

hazardous engine effect; and 

(4) Foreseeable failures or 

malfunctions leading to local events in 

the intended aircraft installation, such 

as fire, overheat, or failures leading to 

damage to engine control system 

components, do not result in a 

hazardous engine effect due to engine 

control system failures or malfunctions. 

(e) System safety assessment. When 

complying with this section and § 33.75, 

the applicant must complete a System 

Safety Assessment for the engine control 

system. This assessment must identify 

faults or failures that result in a change 

in thrust or power, transmission of 

erroneous data, or an effect on engine 

operability producing a surge or stall 

together with the predicted frequency of 

occurrence of these faults or failures. 

(f) Protection systems. 

(1) The design and functioning of 

engine control devices and systems, 

together with engine instruments and 

operating and maintenance instructions, 

must provide reasonable assurance that 

those engine operating limitations that 

affect turbine, compressor, fan, and 

turbosupercharger rotor structural 

integrity will not be exceeded in service. 

(2) When electronic overspeed 

protection systems are provided, the 

design must include a means for testing, 

at least once per engine start/stop cycle, 

to establish the availability of the 

protection function. The means must be 

such that a complete test of the system 

can be achieved in the minimum 

number of cycles. If the test is not fully 

automatic, the requirement for a manual 

test must be contained in the engine 

instructions for operation. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 48285 

(3) When overspeed protection is 

provided through hydromechanical or 

mechanical means, the applicant must 

demonstrate by test or other acceptable 

means that the overspeed function 

remains available between inspection 

and maintenance periods. 

(g) Software. The applicant must 

design, implement, and verify all 

associated software to minimize the 

existence of errors by using a method, 

approved by the FAA, consistent with 

the criticality of the performed 

functions. 

(h) Aircraft-supplied data. Single 

failures leading to loss, interruption or 

corruption of aircraft-supplied data 

(other than thrust or power command 

signals from the aircraft), or data shared 

between engines must: 

(1) Not result in a hazardous engine 

effect for any engine; and 

(2) Be detected and accommodated. 

The accommodation strategy must not 

result in an unacceptable change in 

thrust or power or an unacceptable 

change in engine operating and starting 

characteristics. The applicant must 

evaluate and document in the engine 

installation instructions the effects of 

these failures on engine power or thrust, 

engine operability, and starting 

characteristics throughout the flight 

envelope. 

(i) Aircraft-supplied electrical power. 

(1) The applicant must design the 

engine control system so that the loss, 

malfunction, or interruption of electrical 

power supplied from the aircraft to the 

engine control system will not result in 

any of the following: 

(i) A hazardous engine effect, or 

(ii) The unacceptable transmission of 

erroneous data. 

(2) When an engine dedicated power 

source is required for compliance with 

paragraph (i)(1) of this section, its 

capacity should provide sufficient 

margin to account for engine operation 

below idle where the engine control 

system is designed and expected to 

recover engine operation automatically. 

(3) The applicant must identify and 

declare the need for, and the 

characteristics of, any electrical power 

supplied from the aircraft to the engine 

control system for starting and operating 

the engine, including transient and 

steady state voltage limits, in the engine 

instructions for installation. 

(4) Low voltage transients outside the 

power supply voltage limitations 

declared in paragraph (i)(3) of this 

section must meet the requirements of 

paragraph (i)(1) of this section. The 

engine control system must be capable 

of resuming normal operation when 

aircraft-supplied power returns to 

within the declared limits. 

(j) Air pressure signal. The applicant 

must consider the effects of blockage or 

leakage of the signal lines on the engine 

control system as part of the System 

Safety Assessment of paragraph (e) of 

this section and must adopt the 

appropriate design precautions. 

(k) Automatic availability and control 

of engine power for 30-second OEI 

rating. Rotorcraft engines having a 30- 

second OEI rating must incorporate a 

means, or a provision for a means, for 

automatic availability and automatic 

control of the 30-second OEI power 

within its operating limitations. 

(l) Engine shut down means. Means 

must be provided for shutting down the 

engine rapidly. 

(m) Programmable logic devices. The 

development of programmable logic 

devices using digital logic or other 

complex design technologies must 

provide a level of assurance for the 

encoded logic commensurate with the 

hazard associated with the failure or 

malfunction of the systems in which the 

devices are located. The applicant must 

provide evidence that the development 

of these devices has been done by using 

a method, approved by the FAA, that is 

consistent with the criticality of the 

performed function. 

■ 6. Amend § 33.29 by adding new 

paragraphs (e) through (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 33.29 Instrument connection. 

* * * * * 

(e) The applicant must make 

provision for the installation of 

instrumentation necessary to ensure 

operation in compliance with engine 

operating limitations. Where, in 

presenting the safety analysis, or 

complying with any other requirement, 

dependence is placed on 

instrumentation that is not otherwise 

mandatory in the assumed aircraft 

installation, then the applicant must 

specify this instrumentation in the 

engine installation instructions and 

declare it mandatory in the engine 

approval documentation. 

(f) As part of the System Safety 

Assessment of § 33.28(e), the applicant 

must assess the possibility and 

subsequent effect of incorrect fit of 

instruments, sensors, or connectors. 

Where necessary, the applicant must 

take design precautions to prevent 

incorrect configuration of the system. 

(g) The sensors, together with 

associated wiring and signal 

conditioning, must be segregated, 

electrically and physically, to the extent 

necessary to ensure that the probability 

of a fault propagating from 

instrumentation and monitoring 

functions to control functions, or vice 

versa, is consistent with the failure 

effect of the fault. 

(h) The applicant must provide 

instrumentation enabling the flight crew 

to monitor the functioning of the turbine 

cooling system unless appropriate 

inspections are published in the 

relevant manuals and evidence shows 

that: 

(1) Other existing instrumentation 

provides adequate warning of failure or 

impending failure; 

(2) Failure of the cooling system 

would not lead to hazardous engine 

effects before detection; or 

(3) The probability of failure of the 

cooling system is extremely remote. 

■ 7. Amend § 33.53 by revising the 

section heading and paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 33.53 Engine system and component 

tests. 

(a) For those systems and components 

that cannot be adequately substantiated 

in accordance with endurance testing of 

§ 33.49, the applicant must conduct 

additional tests to demonstrate that 

systems or components are able to 

perform the intended functions in all 

declared environmental and operating 

conditions. 

* * * * * 

§ 33.67 [Amended] 

■ 8. Remove paragraph (d) from § 33.67. 

■ 9. Amend § 33.88 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 33.88 Engine overtemperature test. 

* * * * * 

(b) In addition to the test 

requirements in paragraph (a) of this 

section, each engine for which 30- 

second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings 

are desired, that incorporates a means 

for automatic temperature control 

within its operating limitations in 

accordance with § 33.28(k), must run for 

a period of 4 minutes at the maximum 

power-on rpm with the gas temperature 

at least 35 °F (19 °C) higher than the 

maximum operating limit at 30-second 

OEI rating. Following this run, the 

turbine assembly may exhibit distress 

beyond the limits for an 

overtemperature condition provided the 

engine is shown by analysis or test, as 

found necessary by the FAA, to 

maintain the integrity of the turbine 

assembly. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 33.91 by revising the 

section heading and paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
48286 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 33.91 Engine system and component 

tests. 

(a) For those systems or components 

that cannot be adequately substantiated 

in accordance with endurance testing of 

§ 33.87, the applicant must conduct 

additional tests to demonstrate that the 

systems or components are able to 

perform the intended functions in all 

declared environmental and operating 

conditions. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 2, 2008. 

Robert A. Sturgell, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–19048 Filed 8–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0627; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–CE–033–AD; Amendment 

39–15647; AD 2008–17–09] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; EADS 

SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) for 

the products listed above. This AD 

results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

A rupture of the alternator and vapour 

cycle cooling system pulley drive assembly 

has reportedly been found. Such a failure 

could lead to the loss of the alternator and 

vapour cycle cooling systems and could also 

cause mechanical damage inside the 

powerplant compartment. 

We are issuing this AD to require 

actions to correct the unsafe condition 

on these products. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

September 23, 2008. 

As of September 23, 2008, the 

Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

4119; fax: (816) 329–4090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. That 

NPRM was published in the Federal 

Register on June 9, 2008 (73 FR 32495), 

and proposed to supersede AD 2008–

10–13, Amendment 39–15520 (73 FR 

26318, May 9, 2008). That NPRM 

proposed to correct an unsafe condition 

for the specified products. The MCAI 

states that: 

A rupture of the alternator and vapour 

cycle cooling system pulley drive assembly 

has reportedly been found. Such a failure 

could lead to the loss of the alternator and 

vapour cycle cooling systems and could also 

cause mechanical damage inside the 

powerplant compartment. 

To address this condition, AD 2008–0063–

E had been published to require a check of 

the pulley drive assembly for leakage and, as 

an interim action, removal of the compressor 

drive belt from the assembly, and adoption 

of a new operational procedure to keep the 

air-conditioning system deactivated. 

This AD retains the requirements of AD 

2008–0063–E which is superseded, 

introduces a mandatory terminating action 

which consists in replacing the original 

pulley drive assembly by a new one of an 

improved design—corresponding to the 

EADS SOCATA modification MOD 70–0231–

21—that permits reinstallation of the 

compressor drive belt. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

received no comments on the NPRM or 

on the determination of the cost to the 

public. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the available data and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

as proposed. 

Differences Between This AD and the 

MCAI or Service Information 

We have reviewed the MCAI and 

related service information and, in 

general, agree with their substance. But 

we might have found it necessary to use 

different words from those in the MCAI 

to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. 

operators and is enforceable. In making 

these changes, we do not intend to differ 

substantively from the information 

provided in the MCAI and related 

service information. 

We might also have required different 

actions in this AD from those in the 

MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. 

Any such differences are highlighted in 

a NOTE within the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD will affect 

21 products of U.S. registry. We also 

estimate that it will take about 10 workhours per product to comply with basic 

requirements of this AD. The average 

labor rate is $80 per work-hour. 

Required parts will cost about $2,912 

per product. 

Based on these figures, we estimate 

the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators 

to be $77,952, or $3,712 per product. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. 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. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this AD will not 

have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD will 

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. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

(3) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES