[Federal Register: February 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 35)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 9494-9497]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21fe08-23]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
[[Page 9494]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 33
[Docket No. FAA-2007-28503; Notice No. 08-01]
RIN 2120-AJ04
Airworthiness Standards; Fire Protection
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to change aircraft engine fire protection
certification standards to upgrade and harmonize them with European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) requirements. The proposed changes, if
adopted, would provide nearly uniform fire protection certification
standards for engines certificated in the United States under 14 CFR
part 33 and in European countries under EASA Certification
Specifications for Engines (CS-E), and would simplify international
type certification.
DATES: Send your comments on or before May 21, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-
28503 using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/
and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to the Docket Operations, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring comments to the Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Operations at 202-493-
2251.
For more information on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published April
11, 2000 [65 FR 19477-78] or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Bouthillier, 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)
238-7120; fax (781) 238-7199; e-mail marc.bouthillier@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how
you can get a copy of this proposal and related rulemaking.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is 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, 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
aircraft engine fire protection.
Background
Part 33 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part
33) prescribes airworthiness standards for original and amended type
certificates for aircraft engines certificated in the United States
(U.S.). The Certification Specifications for Engines (CS-E) prescribe
corresponding airworthiness standards for aircraft engine certification
in Europe by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). While part 33
and the European regulations are similar, they differ in several
respects. These differences can result in additional costs and delays.
In 1989, the FAA met with the European Joint Aviation Authorities,
U.S. and European aviation industry representatives to harmonize U.S.
and European certification standards. Transport Canada subsequently
joined this effort. The FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (ARAC) through its Engine Harmonization Working Group to
review existing regulations and recommend changes to eliminate
differences in U.S. and European engine certification fire protection
standards. This proposed rule is based on Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (ARAC) recommendations to the FAA.
General Discussion of the Proposal
This notice proposes to change the fire protection standards for
issuing original and amended aircraft engine type certificates. This
proposal results from an effort to improve and harmonize Federal
Aviation Regulations 14 CFR part 33 with the European requirements of
EASA CS-E. The proposal addresses ARAC recommendations, concurred with
by industry, and based on language
[[Page 9495]]
generally common to both part 33 and CS-E.
Our proposed changes would provide nearly uniform fire protection
certification standards for engines certificated in the United States
under part 33 and in Europe under EASA CS-E, thereby simplifying
aircraft engine import and export activities. The proposal also
reflects current industry design and FAA certification practices.
Section 33.17 Fire Protection
Section 33.17 sets standards for fire prevention and protection in
the design and construction of aircraft engines. Our proposal would
change the section title from ``Fire Prevention'' to ``Fire
Protection'' and harmonize the section with CS-E standards. We propose
to modify the section as follows:
(1) Clarify existing requirements in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and
(e),
(2) Delete current requirements for supersonic engines from
paragraph (d), and add new requirements for components acting as
firewalls,
(3) Renumber paragraph (e) as new paragraph (f),
(4) Add new paragraph (e) to specify requirements for engine
control systems; and
(5) Add new paragraph (g) to include requirements for electrical
bonding.
Our proposed change to paragraph (b) would differentiate between
drain lines and other components and would not apply to certain drain
lines. This revision would be consistent with our fire protection
requirements in Sec. Sec. 23.1183(b)(2), 25.1183(b)(2), 27.1183(b)(2),
and 29.1183(b)(2).
Proposed paragraph (c) adds ``associated shut-off means'' to the
first sentence; changes ``must be fireproof or be enclosed by fireproof
shield'' to ``must be fireproof by construction or protection''; and
incorporates the term ``hazardous quantity''. The addition of the term
``shutoff means'' adds tank shutoff devices to the rule's
applicability, and thereby provides additional margin against feeding a
fire from a flammable fluid tank due to failure of such a device. A
shutoff means can be separate from the tank itself, but is an integral
part of the tank system and needs to be considered under these fire
protection requirements. Other proposed changes are clarifying in
nature and would harmonize U.S. and European standards.
The FAA proposes to remove the requirements in current paragraph
(d) in response to recommendations resulting from an FAA/ARAC review of
an industry study on supersonic transports. The study concluded the
maximum temperature levels of controls and accessories installed in
supersonic aircraft were not significantly greater than maximum
temperature levels of components installed in subsonic applications.
The study showed that components used on supersonic applications
required no additional fire protection because the severity, frequency,
and duration of fire would be similar to those found in subsonic
applications. The study showed, and we agree, that additional fire
protection is not required for these components.
Proposed new paragraph (d) would require that even though the noted
components do not contain or convey flammable fluids, by their
definition, they must be fireproof. This proposal will add requirements
consistent with Sec. Sec. 23.1191, 25.1191, 27.1191, and 29.1191
``Firewalls''.
We propose to redesignate current paragraph (e) as paragraph (f)
and rephrase the text for clarity.
Our new proposed paragraph (e) would address engine control system
effects when associated components are exposed to a fire. Control
system components (for example, electronic, fiber optic,
hydromechanical) should not cause any hazardous effects when exposed to
fire, and should be addressed in the fire protection section. These
proposed new requirements would be consistent with the associated
aircraft requirements. The designated fire zones in new paragraph (e)
are defined in existing Sec. Sec. 23.1181, 25.1181, and 29.1181. Our
proposed paragraph (g) would minimize static discharge sources of
ignition for flammable fluids or vapors.
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 no
new information collection requirements are associated with this
proposed rule.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, FAA policy is to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. We determined
that no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices correspond to these
proposed 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 from the base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this proposed 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 rule does not
warrant a full evaluation, this Order permits that a statement to that
effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full
regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared. Such a
determination has been made for this proposed rule.
Presently, turbine airplane engine manufacturers must satisfy both
the FAA and the EASA certification standards in order for airplane
manufacturers to market airplanes with those engines in both the United
States and Europe. Meeting two different sets of certification
requirements can raise the cost of developing a new airplane engine
without increasing safety. In the interest of fostering international
trade, lowering the cost of airplane engine development, making the
certification process more efficient, and enhancing safety, the FAA,
EASA, and airplane engine manufacturers have been working to create to
the maximum
[[Page 9496]]
possible extent a common set of certification requirements accepted in
both the United States and Europe.
The FAA estimates that there would be minimal costs associated with
this proposed rule. A review of information provided by manufacturers
of turbine airplane engines certificated under part 33 has revealed
that all such future airplane engines are expected to be certificated
under both FAA and EASA standards. As this proposed rule would unify
these requirements in a common international standard, and certificated
turbine airplane engines currently meet both sets of requirements,
manufacturers would incur minimal additional costs from this proposed
rule. In fact, manufacturers are expected to receive cost-savings from
a reduction in the amount of duplicate documentation of tests for the
two different sets of requirements. Further, the proposed rule would
codify existing industry practices into the regulations. The FAA has
not attempted to quantify the cost savings that may accrue due to this
specific proposed rule, beyond noting that while they may be minimal,
they would contribute to a potential harmonization savings. The agency
has made that conclusion based on the consensus among potentially
affected airplane engine manufacturers. Further, the current level of
safety would be enhanced as a result of the proposed rule. As a result,
the FAA has concluded that this proposed rule would be cost beneficial.
The FAA requests comments regarding this determination.
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-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed 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 an initial regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the
RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed 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 FAA concluded that this proposed rule would not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for two
reasons. First, as noted earlier, the net effect of the proposed rule
would provide regulatory cost relief. Second, all United States turbine
airplane engine manufacturers but one, exceed the Small Business
Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 employees for airplane
engine manufacturers. United States transport category airplane engine
manufacturers include: General Electric, CFM International, Pratt &
Whitney, International Aero Engines, Rolls-Royce Corporation,
Honeywell, and Williams International. Williams International is the
only one of these manufacturers that is a U.S. small business.
Given that we believe this proposed rule would reduce costs, and
that only one part 33-airplane engine manufacturer currently qualifies
as a small entity, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would 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 proposed rule and determined it responds to a
domestic safety objective and is not considered an unnecessary barrier
to 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 the expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) 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.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
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.
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. We determined that
this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion
identified in Chapter 3, paragraph 312d and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use
The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Additional Information
Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. We also invite
comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism
impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document.
The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting
data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments,
[[Page 9497]]
please send only one copy of written comments, or if you are filing
comments electronically, please submit your comments only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public
inspection before and after the comment closing date. Before acting on
this proposal, we will consider all comments received on or before the
closing date for comments. Comments filed after the comment period
closes are considered if possible to do so without incurring expense or
delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments received.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information
Do not file in the docket information that you consider proprietary
or confidential business information. Send or deliver this information
directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the information that
you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send the information
on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM and
identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is proprietary or confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information
filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a
separate file to which the public does not have access, and we place a
note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to
examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a
request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
(1) Searching the 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 docket number, notice number, or amendment number
of this rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend part 33 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 33) 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. Section 33.17 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 33.17 Fire protection.
(a) The design and construction of the engine and the materials
used must minimize the probability of the occurrence and spread of fire
during normal operation and failure conditions, and must minimize the
effect of such a fire. In addition, the design and construction of
turbine engines must minimize the probability of the occurrence of an
internal fire that could result in structural failure or other
hazardous effects.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each
external line, fitting, and other component, which contains or conveys
flammable fluid during normal engine operation must be fire resistant
or fireproof, as applicable. Components must be shielded or located to
safeguard against the ignition of leaking flammable fluid.
(c) A tank, which contains flammable fluids and any associated
shut-off means and supports, which are part of and attached to the
engine, must be fireproof either by construction or by protection
unless damage by fire will not cause leakage or spillage of a hazardous
quantity of flammable fluid. For a reciprocating engine having an
integral oil sump of less than 23.7 liters capacity, the oil sump need
not be fireproof or enclosed by a fireproof shield.
(d) An engine component designed, constructed, and installed to act
as a firewall must be:
(1) Fireproof,
(2) Constructed so that no hazardous quantity of air, fluid or
flame can pass around or through the firewall, and,
(3) Protected against corrosion,
(e) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section, engine control system components that are located in a
designated fire zone must be fire resistant or fireproof, as
applicable.
(f) Unintentional accumulation of hazardous quantities of flammable
fluid within the engine must be prevented by draining and venting.
(g) Any components, modules, or equipment, which are susceptible to
or are potential sources of static discharges or electrical fault
currents must be designed and constructed to be properly grounded to
the engine reference, in order to minimize the risk of ignition in
external areas where flammable fluids or vapors could be present.
Issued in Washington, DC on February 12, 2008.
Dorenda D. Baker,
Deputy Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8-3271 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P