Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 55435 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

Valerie J. Best, 

Assistant Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–22327 Filed 9–24–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 33 

[Docket No.: FAA–2007–28501; Amendment 

No. 33–26] 

RIN 2120–AJ05 

Airworthiness Standards; Aircraft 

Engine Standards for Pressurized 

Engine Static Parts 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending the 

aircraft engine type certification 

standards by adding standards for 

pressurized engine static parts that are 

equivalent to those already adopted by 

the European Aviation Safety Agency. 

This rule establishes uniform standards 

for the certification of these parts in the 

United States and in Europe. U.S. 

manufacturers already meet the 

European requirements. 

DATES: This amendment becomes 

effective November 24, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Mouzakis, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate Standards Staff, ANE–110, 

Engine and Propeller Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, New 

England Region, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, 

Massachusetts 01803–5299; telephone 

(781) 238–7114; fax (781) 238–7199, 

e-mail: timoleon.mouzakis@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 regulation is within the scope of 

that authority because it updates the 

existing regulations for aircraft engine 

pressurized static parts. 

Summary of the NPRM 

A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) was published on September 6, 

2007 (72 FR 18136) that proposed 

changes to requirements for pressurized 

engine static parts in Title 14 Code of 

Federal Regulations part 33. The 

comment period for the NPRM closed 

on December 5, 2007. 

Summary of the Final Rule 

This final rule on requirements for 

pressurized engine static parts contains 

minor changes from the NPRM. We 

made changes to two sections, §§ 33.71 

and 33.91, in response to the comments 

we received and our own review of the 

proposed rule. This final rule 

harmonizes FAA and EASA regulations 

for part 33 requirements related to 

pressurized engine static parts. 

Summary of Comments 

There were five commenters. RollsRoyce, General Aviation Manufacturers 

Association (GAMA), and Airbus 

supported the rule and suggested minor 

changes, which are discussed below. 

General Electric and an individual 

supported the rule and did not suggest 

changes. 

The comments relate to the following 

general areas: 

• Component tests; and 

• Examples of static parts. 

Discussion of the Final Rule 

Component Tests 

Pressurized engine static parts operate 

at significant pressures and § 33.64 

prescribes tests for these parts at 

maximum working and operating 

pressures. Rolls-Royce and GAMA 

commented that § 33.91, Engine 

component tests, should be modified as 

there was an inconsistency between 

proposed § 33.64 and existing § 33.91(c), 

which prescribes testing of pressurized 

hydraulic fluid tanks. Rolls-Royce and 

GAMA noted that depending on the 

maximum possible and maximum 

working pressures, as described in 

§ 33.64, and the maximum operating 

pressure as described in § 33.91, the two 

rules could result in two different 

testing requirements for a given 

component. 

The FAA agrees that the two rules 

could be interpreted as separate and 

distinct test requirements, and that 

testing pressurized hydraulic fluid tanks 

falls under the requirements of the new 

§ 33.64. We have also determined that 

proposed § 33.64 and § 33.71, 

Lubrication system, could be interpreted 

as two distinct testing requirements for 

a single component. Section 33.71(c)(9) 

prescribes testing for maximum 

operating temperature and pressure for 

pressurized oil tanks. These tanks 

should be tested under the requirements 

of the new § 33.64. 

In the final rule, therefore, we are 

modifying §§ 33.71(c)(9) and 33.91(c) by 

replacing existing testing requirements 

for pressurized tanks with a reference to 

meeting the requirements of § 33.64. 

This change is consistent with EASA 

regulations for pressurized hydraulic 

fluid and oil tanks. 

Examples of Static Parts 

In the NPRM discussion, we noted 

examples of pressurized engine static 

parts which include compressor, 

combustion, diffuser, and turbine cases; 

heat exchangers; bleed valve solenoids; 

starter motors; and fuel, oil and 

hydraulic system components. Airbus 

commented that the examples of 

pressurized static parts included in the 

preamble of the NPRM should be 

expanded to include associated ducts 

and fittings. 

The purpose of this NPRM discussion 

was to provide examples to help the 

applicant identify the type of parts 

affected by this rule. The examples 

provided in the NPRM do not represent 

a complete list of pressurized static 

parts. It is the applicant’s responsibility 

to ensure all applicable pressurized 

engine parts are identified. We have 

made no changes to the rule in response 

to this comment. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. We 

have determined that there is no current 

or new requirement for information 

collection associated with this 

amendment. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these regulations. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
55436 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Rules and 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 that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows. 

The NPRM explained that, presently, 

engine manufacturers must demonstrate 

compliance with both part 33 and EASA 

certification standards to market turbine 

engines in both the United States and 

Europe. Meeting two sets of certification 

requirements raises the cost of 

developing a new turbine engine. 

In the NPRM, we explained that 

EASA has adopted this standard as 

CS–E 640 Pressure Loads. This final rule 

adds the provisions of CS–E 640 

Pressure Loads to part 33 as a new 

§ 33.64, Pressurized engine static parts, 

under Subpart E—Design and 

Construction; Turbine Aircraft Engines. 

We estimated that no incremental 

costs were associated with this rule 

because our review of U.S. turbine 

aircraft engine manufacturers revealed 

that they currently design their engines 

to meet the standards of CS–E 640 

Pressure Loads. Because our rule adopts 

this standard, manufacturers will incur 

no additional costs resulting from this 

final rule. 

By creating common part 33 and 

EASA requirements, turbine engine 

manufacturers need to design to only 

one certification standard. We have not 

attempted to quantify the cost savings 

from this rulemaking, but note that 

harmonization in this area will 

contribute to the overall savings that 

certification to one standard provides. 

We have also concluded that further 

analysis is not required because turbine 

engine manufacturers are already 

designing to EASA’s CS–E 640 Pressure 

Loads. 

As discussed above, we received 

comments on the proposed rule and, 

where appropriate, have made changes 

in the final rule. However, we received 

no comments on the economic 

evaluation of the proposed rule, and the 

changes made to the final rule, as a 

result of other comments, did not affect 

the economic evaluation of the final 

rule. Therefore, as in the NPRM, the 

FAA concludes that this rule is 

expected to have minimal cost with 

positive net benefits and a complete 

regulatory evaluation was not prepared. 

We have determined that this final 

rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

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

Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

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

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-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. 

The NPRM was expected to be 

minimal cost and we concluded ‘‘* * * 

that this rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.’’ 

We certified that a full regulatory 

flexibility analysis was not required and 

we requested comments on this 

determination. 

We received no comments on the 

regulatory flexibility analysis and have 

made no changes to our initial 

determination because comments 

received on the proposal did not affect 

our regulatory flexibility analysis 

determination. The final rule, like the 

NPRM, is minimal cost with positive net 

benefits. 

Therefore, as the Acting FAA 

Administrator, I certify that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits Federal 

agencies from establishing any 

standards or engaging in related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

The FAA has assessed the potential 

effect of this final rule and has 

determined that it is in accord with the 

Trade Agreements Act as the final rule 

uses European standards as the basis for 

United States regulation. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 55437 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$136.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such 

a mandate; therefore, the requirements 

of Title II of the Act do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have federalism implications. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents using the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

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

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

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

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the amendment number or 

docket number of this rulemaking. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

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

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

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. If 

you are a small entity and you have a 

question regarding this document, you 

may contact your local FAA official, or 

the person listed under the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the 

beginning of the preamble. You can find 

out more about SBREFA on the Internet 

at http://www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies/rulemaking/ 

sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 33—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 33 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702, 44704. 

■ 2. Add § 33.64 to Subpart E to read as 

follows: 

§ 33.64 Pressurized engine static parts. 

(a) Strength. The applicant must 

establish by test, validated analysis, or 

a combination of both, that all static 

parts subject to significant gas or liquid 

pressure loads for a stabilized period of 

one minute will not: 

(1) Exhibit permanent distortion 

beyond serviceable limits or exhibit 

leakage that could create a hazardous 

condition when subjected to the greater 

of the following pressures: 

(i) 1.1 times the maximum working 

pressure; 

(ii) 1.33 times the normal working 

pressure; or 

(iii) 35 kPa (5 p.s.i.) above the normal 

working pressure. 

(2) Exhibit fracture or burst when 

subjected to the greater of the following 

pressures: 

(i) 1.15 times the maximum possible 

pressure; 

(ii) 1.5 times the maximum working 

pressure; or 

(iii) 35 kPa (5 p.s.i.) above the 

maximum possible pressure. 

(b) Compliance with this section must 

take into account: 

(1) The operating temperature of the 

part; 

(2) Any other significant static loads 

in addition to pressure loads; 

(3) Minimum properties 

representative of both the material and 

the processes used in the construction 

of the part; and 

(4) Any adverse geometry conditions 

allowed by the type design. 

■ 3. Amend § 33.71 by revising 

paragraph (c)(9) to read as follows: 

§ 33.71 Lubrication system. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(9) Each unpressurized oil tank may 

not leak when subjected to a maximum 

operating temperature and an internal 

pressure of 5 p.s.i., and each pressurized 

oil tank must meet the requirements of 

§ 33.64. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 33.91 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 33.91 Engine component tests. 

* * * * * 

(c) Each unpressurized hydraulic 

fluid tank may not fail or leak when 

subjected to a maximum operating 

temperature and an internal pressure of 

5 p.s.i., and each pressurized hydraulic 

fluid tank must meet the requirements 

of § 33.64. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

15, 2008. 

Robert A. Sturgell, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–22569 Filed 9–24–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES