

[Federal Register: October 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 200)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 58971-58975]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17oc07-10]                         


[[Page 58971]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III





Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Federal Aviation Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



14 CFR Part 33



 Airworthiness Standards; Engine Bird Ingestion; Final Rule


[[Page 58972]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 33

[Docket No.: FAA-2006-25375; Amendment No. 33-23]
RIN 2120-AI73

 
Airworthiness Standards; Engine Bird Ingestion

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the aircraft turbine engine type 
certification standards to better address the threat flocking birds 
present to turbine engine aircraft. These changes will also harmonize 
FAA and European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) bird ingestion standards 
for aircraft turbine engines type certificated by the United States and 
the EASA countries, and simplify airworthiness approvals for import and 
export. The changes are necessary to establish uniform international 
standards and provide an acceptable level of safety for aircraft 
turbine engines with respect to the current large flocking bird threat.

DATES: This amendment becomes effective on November 16, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Bouthillier, Rulemaking and 
Policy Branch, Engine and Propeller Directorate, ANE-111, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, 
Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 238-7120; facsimile (781) 238-
7199; e-mail marc.bouthillier@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 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 regulation is within the scope of 
that authority because it updates the existing regulations for engine 
bird ingestion.

Background

    The FAA adopted new regulations under 14 CFR 33.76 on September 5, 
2000, to better address the overall bird ingestion threat to turbine 
powered aircraft. These requirements were adopted, in part, as a 
response to NTSB safety recommendation A-76-64, which recommended an 
increase in the level of bird ingestion capability for aircraft 
engines.
    Based on comments received during that rulemaking effort, the FAA 
decided to pursue additional rulemaking to address larger flocking 
birds (mass greater then 1.15 kg/2.5 pounds), since existing engine 
certification requirements did not specifically address the threat that 
these size birds, or their growing population, present to airplane 
operational safety.

Summary of the NPRM

    On July 20, 2006, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM), ``Airworthiness Standards; Engine Bird Ingestion'' (71 FR 
41184). The NPRM proposed to amend aircraft turbine engine type 
certification standards to reflect recent analysis of the threat 
flocking birds present to turbine engine aircraft. The proposed changes 
are necessary to establish uniform international standards that provide 
an adequate level of safety. The comment period closed September 18, 
2006.

Summary of the Final Rule

    The final rule adopts new bird ingestion standards for turbine 
aircraft engines under 14 CFR 33.76. It also provides a detailed 
description of the rulemaking project including the safety objective 
and a discussion of the considerations supporting our selection of this 
course of action.
    No changes were made to the final rule from what was proposed in 
the NPRM.

Summary of Comments

    The FAA received comments from Transport Canada Civil Aviation 
(TCCA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
    TCCA fully supports the intent of the proposal. However, NTSB 
expressed concern with the size of the largest bird upon which the rule 
is based (8 pounds). NTSB reasoned that flocking birds greater than 8 
pounds can exist in the environment, and may have impacted commercial 
aircraft in the past. NTSB also expressed concern about using de-rated 
takeoff thrust instead of full rated takeoff thrust value for required 
tests because full rated thrust can be selected by the flight crew, and 
because this power setting may be a more severe case than using de-
rated takeoff thrust. NTSB suggested the required tests be revised to 
reflect a worst-case scenario.
    The FAA does not concur with these three comments. The safety 
objective of this rule is to address the expected world fleet rate of 
catastrophic aircraft events due to multi-engine power loss resulting 
from multi-engine ingestion of large flocking birds. The various rule 
parameters were carefully selected to achieve this goal by devising 
tests that encompass a sufficient percentage of possible parameter 
combinations (e.g., bird mass/number, bird speed, engine power setting, 
target locations, etc.) that would allow the world fleet to operate at 
this very high level of safety. The database of ingestion events used 
to determine ingestion rates covers a 30-year period and over 325 
million flights. The database analysis enabled the FAA to define the 
actual threat experienced in service, including a conservative 
adjustment for potential future increases in ingestion rates. The 
proposed rule was not intended to encompass the worst possible 
combination of factors, as this is problematic to predict, and would be 
beyond the capability of current engine technology. We believe 
selecting all parameters using a theoretical worst case scenario would 
be impractical from a design, manufacture, and operational standpoint.
    NTSB further suggested incorporating pre-existing fan blade service 
damage into the required tests because the potential exists for such 
damage to occur in normal service. The FAA is not adopting this 
suggestion. Engine type certification requirements are intended for and 
applied to undamaged products as a baseline. The engine bird ingestion 
requirements and type certificate (TC) requirements are similar in this 
regard. This revised rule is based on critical ingestion parameters for 
the most severe engine bird ingestion events recorded over the past 
several decades. As such, substantial margin exists for the normal 
ingestion events seen in service, including service acceptable damage 
allowed by the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICAs). Also, 
current Advisory Circular material for ICA compliance specifies the 
type certificate holder evaluate service-acceptable damage criteria 
against the type certification requirements, and include appropriate 
instructions in the ICAs. The overall positive experience of the world 
fleet indicates that this

[[Page 58973]]

general approach provides an acceptable level of safety.
    NTSB also suggested that the FAA consider bird ingestion event data 
collected since the bird study cutoff date of 1999. NTSB asserts the 
30-year data set used is inadequate to assess the risk associated with 
bird ingestion. The FAA's decision to proceed with this rulemaking is 
based on quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the threat observed 
in service over a lengthy period of time. We concluded that the 
increasing population of large flocking birds in the environment, and 
the increasing number of encounters in service, make it necessary to 
expand the scope of the existing requirements. The data from the 30-
year study period covers over 325 million flights and is comprised of 
data from actual engine bird ingestion events where the bird species, 
size, and number; aircraft and engine model; flight regime, and outcome 
are reasonably known. The database covers a broad cross-section of 
aircraft type and operations and is considered fully adequate to 
establish engine bird ingestion rates from which the critical ingestion 
parameters were selected to meet the rule's safety objective. The event 
data collected since the study period does not appear to indicate a 
change in the basic threat definition or an increase in the actual rate 
of occurrence and would not likely affect the outcome of the rulemaking 
project.
    Finally, as suggested by TCCA, the FAA has reviewed the new table 
included in the amendatory language to ensure it is accurate. The final 
rule is adopted as proposed.

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 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to 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 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 regulatory analysis explained that this rule will have a 
minimal cost impact with positive net benefits because the two U.S. 
firms to be affected by this rule are already in compliance in order to 
sell their products in Europe. No comments were received on the NPRM 
regulatory analysis. Therefore, we conclude that this final rule will 
have minimal cost impact with positive net benefits and a detailed 
regulatory analysis is not required.
    FAA has, therefore, 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.

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 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 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis determined that there were 
no small entities that would be affected by this rule. We received no 
comments on the NPRM Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and continue to 
believe that this final rule will only impact two American 
manufacturers neither of which is a small entity. 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

[[Page 58974]]

appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and 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 
(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 final rule does not contain such a mandate. 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 Chapter 3, 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://www.regulations.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

    Air Transportation, Aircraft, Aviation Safety, Safety.

The Amendment

0
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

0
1. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.


0
2. Amend Sec.  33.76 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, 
(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(5), the heading of paragraph (b) introductory text, 
and the heading of paragraph (c) introductory text, and adding 
paragraph (d) and Table 4 to read as follows:


Sec.  33.76  Bird ingestion.

    (a) General. Compliance with paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this 
section shall be in accordance with the following:
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, all 
ingestion tests must be conducted with the engine stabilized at no less 
than 100-percent takeoff power or thrust, for test day ambient 
conditions prior to the ingestion. In addition, the demonstration of 
compliance must account for engine operation at sea level takeoff 
conditions on the hottest day that a minimum engine can achieve maximum 
rated takeoff thrust or power.
* * * * *
    (3) The impact to the front of the engine from the large single 
bird, the single largest medium bird which can enter the inlet, and the 
large flocking bird must be evaluated. Applicants must show that the 
associated components when struck under the conditions prescribed in 
paragraphs (b), (c) or (d) of this section, as applicable, will not 
affect the engine to the extent that the engine cannot comply with the 
requirements of paragraphs (b)(3), (c)(6) and (d)(4) of this section.
* * * * *
    (5) Objects that are accepted by the Administrator may be 
substituted for birds when conducting the bird ingestion tests required 
by paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section.
* * * * *
    (b) Large single bird. * * *
    (c) Small and medium flocking bird. * * *
    (d) Large flocking bird. An engine test will be performed as 
follows:
    (1) Large flocking bird engine tests will be performed using the 
bird mass and weights in Table 4, and ingested at a bird speed of 200 
knots.
    (2) Prior to the ingestion, the engine must be stabilized at no 
less than the mechanical rotor speed of the first exposed stage or 
stages that, on a standard day, would produce 90 percent of the sea 
level static maximum rated takeoff power or thrust.
    (3) The bird must be targeted on the first exposed rotating stage 
or stages at a blade airfoil height of not less than 50 percent 
measured at the leading edge.

[[Page 58975]]

    (4) Ingestion of a large flocking bird under the conditions 
prescribed in this paragraph must not cause any of the following:
    (i) A sustained reduction of power or thrust to less than 50 
percent of maximum rated takeoff power or thrust during the run-on 
segment specified under paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section.
    (ii) Engine shutdown during the required run-on demonstration 
specified in paragraph (d)(5) of this section.
    (iii) The conditions specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
    (5) The following test schedule must be used:
    (i) Ingestion followed by 1 minute without power lever movement.
    (ii) Followed by 13 minutes at not less than 50 percent of maximum 
rated takeoff power or thrust.
    (iii) Followed by 2 minutes between 30 and 35 percent of maximum 
rated takeoff power or thrust.
    (iv) Followed by 1 minute with power or thrust increased from that 
set in paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section, by between 5 and 10 
percent of maximum rated takeoff power or thrust.
    (v) Followed by 2 minutes with power or thrust reduced from that 
set in paragraph (d)(5)(iv) of this section, by between 5 and 10 
percent of maximum rated takeoff power or thrust.
    (vi) Followed by a minimum of 1 minute at ground idle then engine 
shutdown. The durations specified are times at the defined conditions. 
Power lever movement between each condition will be 10 seconds or less, 
except that power lever movements allowed within paragraph (d)(5)(ii) 
of this section are not limited, and for setting power under paragraph 
(d)(5)(iii) of this section will be 30 seconds or less.
    (6) Compliance with the large flocking bird ingestion requirements 
of this paragraph (d) may also be demonstrated by:
    (i) Incorporating the requirements of paragraph (d)(4) and (d)(5) 
of this section, into the large single bird test demonstration 
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; or
    (ii) Use of an engine subassembly test at the ingestion conditions 
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section if:
    (A) All components critical to complying with the requirements of 
paragraph (d) of this section are included in the subassembly test;
    (B) The components of paragraph (d)(6)(ii)(A) of this section are 
installed in a representative engine for a run-on demonstration in 
accordance with paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(5) of this section; except 
that section (d)(5)(i) is deleted and section (d)(5)(ii) must be 14 
minutes in duration after the engine is started and stabilized; and
    (C) The dynamic effects that would have been experienced during a 
full engine ingestion test can be shown to be negligible with respect 
to meeting the requirements of paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(5) of this 
section.
    (7) Applicants must show that an unsafe condition will not result 
if any engine operating limit is exceeded during the run-on period.
* * * * *

      Table 4 to Sec.   33.76.--Large Flocking Bird Mass and Weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Bird mass
Engine inlet throat area (square meters/square      Bird      and weight
                    inches)                       quantity    (kg (lbs))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A <  2.50 (3875)...............................         None  ...........
2.50 (3875) < = A <  3.50 (5425)................            1  1.85 (4.08)
3.50 (5425) < = A <  3.90 (6045)................            1  2.10 (4.63)
3.90 (6045) < = A..............................            1  2.50 (5.51)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 5, 2007.
Robert A. Sturgell,
Acting Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E7-20407 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
