Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2006/07/18/E6-11372/airworthiness-standards-safety-analysis
Timestamp: 2018-03-22 18:32:38
Document Index: 694996615

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 33', 'art 33', 'art 33', 'art 33', 'art 33', 'art 33', 'art 33', '§\u200933', '§\u200933', '§\u200933', '§\u200933', '§\u200933', '§\u200933', '§\u200933', '§\u200933', 'art 33', 'art 33', '§\u200933', '§\u200933', '§\u200933', 'art.\n1']

A Proposed Rule by the Federal Aviation Administration on 07/18/2006
Send your comments on or before October 16, 2006.
71 FR 40675
40675-40679 (5 pages)
Notice No. 06-10
2120-AI74
E6-11372
The Safety Analysis Standard
Differences Between Part 33 and JAR-E Earlier Requirements
Outcome of Harmonization Effort
Initial Economic Evaluation, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E6-11372 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E6-11372
Start Preamble Start Printed Page 40675
The FAA is proposing to amend the safety analysis type certification standard for turbine aircraft engines. This proposal harmonizes the FAA's type certification standard for safety analysis with the corresponding standards of the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The proposed rule would establish a nearly uniform safety analysis standard for turbine aircraft engines certified in the United States under Part 33 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 33) and in European countries under Joint Aviation Requirements-Engines (JAR-E) and Certification Specifications-Engines (CS-E), thereby simplifying airworthiness approvals for import and export.
You may send comments, identified by Docket No. FAA-2006-25376, using any of the following methods:
DOT Docket Web site: Got to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
Ann Azevedo, Chief Scientist & Technical Advisor, Safety Analysis, ANE-104, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299; telephone: (781) 238-7117; facsimile: (781) 238-7199; e-mail: ann.azevedo@faa.gov.
We are proposing to amend the safety analysis type certification standard for turbine aircraft engines. This proposal Start Printed Page 40676harmonizes the FAA's type certification standard on this issue with corresponding standards of the JAA and EASA. The proposed changes, if adopted, would establish a nearly uniform safety analysis standard for turbine aircraft engines certified in the United States under part 33 and in European countries under JAR-E and CS-E, thereby simplifying airworthiness approvals for import and export.
The FAA is committed to the harmonization of part 33 with JAR-E and CS-E. In August 1989, as a result of that commitment, the FAA Engine and Propeller Directorate participated in a meeting with the JAA, the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), and the European Association of Aerospace Industries (AECMA). The purpose of the meeting was to establish a philosophy, guidelines, and a working relationship regarding the resolution of issues identified as needing harmonization, including the identification of the need for new standards. The safety and failure analysis standards were identified as a Significant Regulatory Difference in need of harmonization. All parties agreed to work in a partnership to jointly address the harmonization effort. This partnership was later expanded to include Transport Canada, the airworthiness authority of Canada.
The FAA established the ARAC to provide advice and recommendations to the FAA on the full range of its rulemaking activities with respect to aviation-related issues. This includes obtaining advice and recommendations on the FAA's commitment to harmonize its Federal Aviation Regulations and practices with its trading partners in Europe and Canada.
In a notice published on October 20, 1998 (63 FR 56059), the FAA asked ARAC, Transport Airplane and Engine Issues Group (TAEIG), to provide advice and recommendations on safety and failure analysis standards. This proposed rule and associated advisory material is based on recommendations resulting from that task.
The ultimate objective of the safety analysis standard is to ensure that the collective risk from all engine failure conditions is acceptably low. An acceptable total engine design risk is achieved by managing the individual risks to acceptable levels. This concept emphasizes reducing the risk of an event proportionally with the severity of the hazard it represents.
Aircraft-level requirements for individual failure conditions may be more severe than the engine-level requirements. Early coordination between the engine manufacturer, the aircraft manufacturer, and the appropriate FAA certification offices, will provide assurance that the engine will be eligible for installation in the aircraft. Early coordination will also ensure that the engine applicant is aware of any additional and possibly more restrictive aircraft standards that will apply to the engine in the installed condition.
The following comparisons show differences between part 33 and the JAR-E as they existed before the requirements were harmonized. JAA subsequently revised the JAR-E on May 1, 2003, as a result of harmonization discussions with the FAA. EASA incorporated the harmonized rule into its certification standards as CS-E 510.
JAR-E 510 failure analysis
Existing section 33.75 safety analysis
Required a summary listing of all failures that result in major or hazardous effects, along with an estimate of the probability of occurrence of these major and hazardous effects Requires an assessment that any probable malfunction, failure, or improper operation will not lead to four specific hazards of undefined severity.
Required a list of assumptions contained within the failure analysis and the substantiation of those assumptions [Most of the assumptions are covered by other paragraphs in part 33].
Referenced the specific hazard of toxic bleed air. [This hazard is not mentioned in § 33.75].
Required analysis to examine malfunctions and single and multiple failures Requires analysis to examine malfunctions and single and multiple failures and examination of improper operation.
This proposed harmonized standard uses the framework of the current JAR-E 510/CS-E 510, while including specific hazards as in the current § 33.75.
Under § 33.5, we propose a new paragraph (c) to reflect the new requirement for the safety analysis assumptions to be included in the engine's installation and operation manual.
We propose to revise § 33.74 to reflect the new organization of the revised § 33.75, including the addition of new specific conditions to be evaluated.
We propose to rewrite § 33.75 using the format of the current JAA/EASA equivalent rule to reflect the harmonization effort.
We propose to revise § 33.76 to reference the specific engine conditions listed as hazardous effects within the proposed § 33.75.
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, including minimum safety standards for aircraft engines. This proposed rule is within the scope of that authority because it updates the existing regulations for safety analysis type certification standard for turbine aircraft engines.
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 determined that there are no new information collection requirements associated with this proposed rule.
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 Start Printed Page 40677maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and identified no differences with these proposed regulations.
The FAA estimates that over the next ten years, the total quantitative benefits from implementing this proposed rule are roughly $0.5 million ($0.4 million present value). In contrast to these potential benefits, the estimated cost of compliance is approximately $0.3 million ($0.2 million discounted).
Accordingly, the proposed rule is cost-beneficial due to the overall reduction in compliance cost while maintaining the same level of safety.
Period of analysis—2006 through 2016.
Compensation Rates, Economic Values for FAA Investment and Regulatory Decisions, A Guide, May 2005.
We evaluate benefits from adopting European certification requirements (often referred to as harmonization) and express them as cost savings. The cost savings are the result of the number of hours saved simplifying the certification process while maintaining the same level of safety.
The total benefits of this proposal are $0.5 million ($0.4 million present value). The benefits are for new type certificates $59,360 ($43,102 present value), and benefits for amended type certificates of $426,362 ($309,585 present value).
One part 33 turbine engine manufacturer informed the FAA that it would incur certification costs because of this proposed rule. This proposed rule would require an additional 1,000 engineering hours for certification of one new engine every two years. The estimated total bi-annual cost of $54,210 equals 1,000 hours multiplied by the hourly compensation rate of $54.21.[1] The total cost over a ten-year period is $271,050 ($196,812 present value).
Industry representatives for remaining firms informed the FAA that their firms currently meet both the FAA and the European requirements. Because these firms currently meet both sets of requirements, no extra tests would be required because of the proposed rule.
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 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.
In our small entity classification, the FAA uses the size standards from the Small Business Administration. Only one manufacturer would incur costs because of this proposed rule. Because this manufacturer employs more than 1,500 employees, it is not considered a small entity. The remaining part 33 engine manufacturers would not incur costs associated with this proposed rule. These manufacturers would in fact realize a prorated portion of the cost saving resulting from a single harmonized certification procedure.
Consequently, the FAA certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal Start Printed Page 40678agencies 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 proposed rule considers and incorporates an international standard as the basis of a FAA regulation. Thus the proposed rule complies with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 and does not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade.
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 FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of Title II do not apply.
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and therefore, would not have federalism implications.
FAA Order 1050.1E defines FAA actions that may be categorically excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act environmental impact statement in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. We determined that this proposed rule qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in Chapter 3, paragraph 312d, and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
We analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We 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.
If any of the engine main rotating systems continue to rotate after the engine is shutdown for any reason while in flight, and if means to prevent that continued rotation are not provided, then any continued rotation during the maximum period of flight, and in the flight conditions expected to occur with that engine inoperative, must not result in any condition described in § 33.75(g)(2)(i) through (vi) of this part.
(a)(1) The applicant must analyze the engine, including the control system, to assess the likely consequences of all failures that can reasonably be expected to occur. This analysis will take into account, if applicable:
(2) The applicant must summarize those failures that could result in major engine effects or hazardous engine effects, as defined in paragraph (g) of this section, and estimate the probability of occurrence of those effects.
(b) If significant doubt exists, the FAA may require that any assumption as to the effects of failures and likely combination of failures be verified by test.
(c) The primary failure of certain single elements cannot be sensibly estimated in numerical terms. If the failure of such elements is likely to result in hazardous engine effects, then compliance may be shown by reliance on the prescribed integrity requirements of this part. These instances must be stated in the safety analysis.
(d) If reliance is placed on a safety system to prevent a failure from progressing to hazardous engine effects, the possibility of a safety system failure in combination with a basic engine failure must be included in the analysis. Such a safety system may include safety devices, instrumentation, early warning devices, maintenance checks, and other similar equipment or procedures. If items of a safety system are outside the control of the engine manufacturer, the assumptions of the safety analysis with Start Printed Page 40679respect to the reliability of these parts must be clearly stated in the analysis and identified in the installation instructions under § 33.5 of this part.
(3) Ingestion of a single large bird tested under the conditions prescribed in this section must not result in any condition described in § 33.75(g)(2) of this part.
1. Economic Values for FAA Investment and Regulatory Decisions, A Guide, December 2004. Table 7-1 lists the total compensation for Aircraft Manufacturing (white collar occupation) as $49.04. To express 2003 dollars in 2006 dollars we use the estimated average GDP annual percent change of 3.4%.
[FR Doc. E6-11372 Filed 7-17-06; 8:45 am]