Airworthiness Standards: Safety Analysis, 50864-50868 [E7-17372]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
• Federal Aviation Administration.

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 4, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50864-50868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-17372]



[[Page 50863]]

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

Part VII





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 33



 Airworthiness Standards: Safety Analysis; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 4, 2007 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 50864]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration.

14 CFR Part 33

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25376; Amendment No. 33-24]
RIN 2120-A174


Airworthiness Standards: Safety Analysis

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending the safety analysis type certification 
standard for turbine aircraft engines. This rule establishes a nearly 
uniform safety analysis standard for turbine aircraft engines certified 
in the United States under part 33 and in European countries under the 
Certification Specifications for Engines, thereby simplifying 
airworthiness approvals for import and export.

DATES: This amendment becomes effective November 5, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Grant, Engine and Propeller 
Directorate, Engine and Propeller Directorate Standards Staff, ANE-110, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 12 New England Executive Park, 
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299; telephone: (781) 238-7757; 
facsimile: (781) 238-7199; e-mail: robert.grant@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
    (1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket 
Management System (DMS) Web page (https://dms.dot.gov/search);
    (2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
    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 
https://dms.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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find 
out more about SBREFA on the Internet at https://www.faa.gov/
regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding 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, 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 rule is within the scope of that 
authority because it updates the existing regulations for the safety 
analysis type certification standard for turbine aircraft engines.

Background

    On July 18, 2006, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled Airworthiness Standards: Safety Analysis (71 FR 40675). 
The NPRM proposed to establish engine safety analysis requirements 
consistent with those adopted by the European Aviation Safety Agency 
(EASA) in its Certification Specifications for Engines (CS-E).
    These new engine safety analysis requirements will ensure that the 
collective risk from all engine failure conditions is acceptably low. 
Early coordination between the engine manufacturer and the appropriate 
FAA certification offices is necessary to determine if more restrictive 
aircraft standards will apply to the installed engine.

Summary of Comments

    The FAA received three comment letters in response to the NPRM. The 
commenters included General Electric, Rolls-Royce, and Transport Canada 
Civil Aviation (TCCA).
    The commenters supported the rule, but suggested minor changes. Two 
commenters requested changes to make our regulation more consistent 
with EASA's regulation. In response, we made changes to paragraphs 
33.75(a)(2) and (c) and added a new paragraph (e)(4). A few comments 
requested changes that go beyond the scope of the proposed rule. We 
made no changes to the rule in response to these comments.

Discussion of the Final Rule

Section 33.74

    We revised Sec.  33.74 to update a reference to Sec.  33.75 that 
incorporates changes to the hazardous engine effects in Sec.  33.75.
    General Electric asserted that an acceptable probability range for 
a hazardous condition should be added to this section for consistency 
with the new Sec.  33.75.
    We do not agree. The change to Sec.  33.74 is limited to updating 
the reference to Sec.  33.75 to reflect changes to hazardous engine 
effects in Sec.  33.75(g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(vi). The suggested 
change is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. No changes were made to 
the rule due to this comment.

Section 33.75

    This final rule establishes engine safety analysis requirements 
consistent with those adopted by the EASA in its Certification 
Specifications for Engines. These new engine safety analysis 
requirements will ensure that the collective risk from all engine 
failure conditions is acceptably low.

Section 33.75(a)

    Rolls-Royce noted that the equivalent EASA rule for engine safety 
analysis requires that any engine part whose failure could result in a 
hazardous engine effect must be clearly identified.
    We agree and changed Sec.  33.75(a)(2) to more clearly identify 
engine parts whose failure could result in a hazardous engine effect. 
This change harmonizes Sec.  33.75(a) with CS-E 510(a).

Section 33.75(c)

    Rolls-Royce commented that the equivalent EASA rule specifically 
referenced the CS-E section that

[[Page 50865]]

contains integrity requirements. Rolls-Royce believes that the proposed 
FAA rule will create confusion by not specifying the section where 
integrity requirements are located.
    We agree and changed Sec.  33.75(c) to directly reference part 33 
integrity requirements in Sec. Sec.  33.15, 33.27, and 33.70. This 
change harmonizes Sec.  33.75(c) with CS-E 510(c).

Section 33.75(e)

    TCCA noted that one of the items that a safety analysis depends on 
is present in the EASA regulations but not in the proposed text of 
Sec.  33.75(e). TCCA suggested adding a statement to Sec.  33.75(e) 
referencing ``Flight crew actions to be specified in the operating 
instructions established under Sec.  33.5.''
    We agree with this comment. When the safety analysis depends on 
action by the flight crew, an appropriate reference should be made to 
Sec.  33.5. Therefore, we added new paragraph (e)(4) to Sec.  33.75. 
This change harmonizes Sec.  33.75(e)(4) with CS-E 510(e)(4).

Section 33.75(f)

    Rolls Royce noted that it did not understand the significance of 
the differences between the EASA standard CS-E 510(f) and Sec.  
33.75(f) regarding items that must be investigated in the safety 
analysis. Specifically, CS-E 510(f)(2) lists ``aircraft-supplied data 
or electrical power'' as an item that must be considered in the safety 
analysis while Sec.  33.75(f)(2) does not include this item and, 
instead, references ``manual and automatic controls.''
    We believe that the assessment of failures of aircraft data or 
power required by the EASA rule is beyond the scope of Sec.  33.75, 
which applies only to single-engine failure assessments. Within Sec.  
33.75, the effect of an engine failure is assessed, including the 
effects of manual and automatic control failures. No changes were made 
to the rule due to this comment.

Section 33.75(g)

    Rolls-Royce requested clarification or deletion of the wording in 
Sec.  33.75(g), ``Unless otherwise approved by the FAA and stated in 
the safety analysis'' as there is no corresponding wording in CS-E 
510(g).
    We recognize the difference in this case between FAA and EASA 
regulations and believe there is a need to keep the current wording in 
Sec.  33.75(g). The current wording in Sec.  33.75(g) allows for 
recognition of cases where the applicant may show that certain defined 
hazards may be of lesser or greater severity due to the applicant's 
design. No changes were made to the rule due to this comment.

Section 33.75(g)(1)

    Rolls-Royce commented that in some installations (for example, 
single-engine aircraft) complete loss of power or thrust in a single 
engine can lead to an event more severe than a minor engine effect. 
Rolls-Royce requested a change to the rule to allow for this situation.
    We do not agree with the requested change. Within part 33, the 
effects of engine failures are assessed at the engine level. In 
aircraft certification, how the engine is installed in the aircraft is 
considered in the evaluation of the effect on the aircraft of engine 
failures. No changes were made to the rule due to this comment.

Section 33.75(g)(2)

    Section 33.75(g)(2) provides a list of effects that will be 
regarded as hazardous engine effects. TCCA recommends rewording the 
hazardous engine effects related to engine shutdown to emphasize the 
need for basic engine fuel control. TCCA also believes that no credit 
is given for aircraft-installed means to shut down the engine. TCCA, 
therefore, suggested that FAA change the wording of Sec.  
33.75(g)(2)(vii), which currently reads ``Complete inability to shut 
the engine down,'' to read ``Lose the capability to shut down the 
engine.''
    We disagree with the suggested change in the rule language. The 
intent of Sec.  33.75(g)(2) is to define hazardous engine effects not 
to govern the means to control the hazardous engine effect. Section 
33.75(a)(1)(i) allows aircraft-level devices assumed to be associated 
with a typical installation to be taken into account in the safety 
analysis. No changes were made to the rule due to this comment.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Paperwork Reduction Act

    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.
    There are no current or new requirements 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.

Economic Assessment, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 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. We suggest readers seeking 
greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we 
have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final 
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an 
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in 
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; 
(5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on 
state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by 
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized 
below.

Benefit Cost Summary

    The FAA estimates that over the next 10 years, the total 
quantitative benefits

[[Page 50866]]

from implementing this final rule are roughly $0.7 million ($0.5 
million present value). In contrast to these potential benefits, the 
estimated cost of compliance is approximately $0.4 million ($0.3 
million present value).
    Accordingly, this final rule is cost beneficial due to the overall 
reduction in compliance cost while maintaining the same level of 
safety.

Who Is Potentially Affected by This Rulemaking

    Part 33 Engine Manufacturers.

Assumptions

    Period of analysis--2007 through 2016.
    Discount rate--7%.

Benefits

    We evaluate the benefits that will occur from harmonization and 
estimate them in terms of cost savings for new and amended type 
certificates. The cost savings are the result of the number of hours 
saved from a common certification process.
    The total benefits of this final rule are $0.7 million ($0.5 
million present value). The benefits are comprised of benefits from 
certifying new type designs of $82,125 ($59,632 present value) and 
benefits from certifying amended type designs of $589,875 ($428,314 
present value).

Costs

    One part 33 turbine engine manufacturer told the FAA that it will 
incur additional certification costs as a result of this final rule. 
According to this manufacturer, it will certificate one new engine 
every two years, and this final rule will require an additional 1,000 
engineering hours to certify each engine. The estimated biannual cost 
equals the 1,000 hours multiplied by the burdened hourly cost for a 
certification engineer ($75.00). When the biannual costs are summed 
over a 10-year period, the total costs are $375,000 ($272,291 present 
value).

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 FAA uses the size standards from the Small Business 
Administration for Air Transportation and Aircraft Manufacturing 
specifying companies having less than 1,500 employees as small entities 
in its classification. There are part 33 engine manufacturers who 
qualify as small businesses but will not incur costs associated with 
this final rule. These manufacturers will realize a prorated portion of 
the cost saving resulting from a single harmonized certification 
procedure. Although one manufacturer will incur costs as a result of 
this rule, this manufacturer employs more than 1,500 employees and is 
not considered a small entity. Therefore, as the FAA Administrator, I 
certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 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 a 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 FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value 
of $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million.
    The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and 
determined that it does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the 
requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 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 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

[[Page 50867]]

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration 
amends part 33 of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 33) 
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. In Sec.  33.5, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  33.5  Instruction manual for installing and operating the engine.

* * * * *
    (c) Safety analysis assumptions. The assumptions of the safety 
analysis as described in Sec.  33.75(d) with respect to the reliability 
of safety devices, instrumentation, early warning devices, maintenance 
checks, and similar equipment or procedures that are outside the 
control of the engine manufacturer.

0
3. Revise Sec.  33.74 to read as follows:


Sec.  33.74  Continued rotation.

    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, may not 
result in any condition described in Sec.  33.75(g)(2)(i) through (vi) 
of this part.

0
4. Revise Sec.  33.75 to read as follows:


Sec.  33.75  Safety analysis.

    (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:
    (i) Aircraft-level devices and procedures assumed to be associated 
with a typical installation. Such assumptions must be stated in the 
analysis.
    (ii) Consequential secondary failures and latent failures.
    (iii) Multiple failures referred to in paragraph (d) of this 
section or that result in the hazardous engine effects defined in 
paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
    (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. Any engine part the failure of which could 
reasonably result in a hazardous engine effect must be clearly 
identified in this summary.
    (3) The applicant must show that hazardous engine effects are 
predicted to occur at a rate not in excess of that defined as extremely 
remote (probability range of 10-7 to 10-9 per 
engine flight hour). Since the estimated probability for individual 
failures may be insufficiently precise to enable the applicant to 
assess the total rate for hazardous engine effects, compliance may be 
shown by demonstrating that the probability of a hazardous engine 
effect arising from an individual failure can be predicted to be not 
greater than 10-8 per engine flight hour. In dealing with 
probabilities of this low order of magnitude, absolute proof is not 
possible, and compliance may be shown by reliance on engineering 
judgment and previous experience combined with sound design and test 
philosophies.
    (4) The applicant must show that major engine effects are predicted 
to occur at a rate not in excess of that defined as remote (probability 
range of 10-5 to 10-7 per engine flight hour).
    (b) 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 
Sec. Sec.  33.15, 33.27, and 33.70 as applicable. 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 respect to the reliability of these parts must 
be clearly stated in the analysis and identified in the installation 
instructions under Sec.  33.5 of this part.
    (e) If the safety analysis depends on one or more of the following 
items, those items must be identified in the analysis and appropriately 
substantiated.
    (1) Maintenance actions being carried out at stated intervals. This 
includes the verification of the serviceability of items that could 
fail in a latent manner. When necessary to prevent hazardous engine 
effects, these maintenance actions and intervals must be published in 
the instructions for continued airworthiness required under Sec.  33.4 
of this part. Additionally, if errors in maintenance of the engine, 
including the control system, could lead to hazardous engine effects, 
the appropriate procedures must be included in the relevant engine 
manuals.
    (2) Verification of the satisfactory functioning of safety or other 
devices at pre-flight or other stated periods. The details of this 
satisfactory functioning must be published in the appropriate manual.
    (3) The provisions of specific instrumentation not otherwise 
required.
    (4) Flight crew actions to be specified in the operating 
instructions established under Sec.  33.5.
    (f) If applicable, the safety analysis must also include, but not 
be limited to, investigation of the following:
    (1) Indicating equipment;
    (2) Manual and automatic controls;
    (3) Compressor bleed systems;
    (4) Refrigerant injection systems;
    (5) Gas temperature control systems;
    (6) Engine speed, power, or thrust governors and fuel control 
systems;
    (7) Engine overspeed, overtemperature, or topping limiters;
    (8) Propeller control systems; and
    (9) Engine or propeller thrust reversal systems.
    (g) Unless otherwise approved by the FAA and stated in the safety 
analysis, for compliance with part 33, the following failure 
definitions apply to the engine:
    (1) An engine failure in which the only consequence is partial or 
complete loss of thrust or power (and associated engine services) from 
the engine will be regarded as a minor engine effect.
    (2) The following effects will be regarded as hazardous engine 
effects:
    (i) Non-containment of high-energy debris;
    (ii) Concentration of toxic products in the engine bleed air 
intended for the cabin sufficient to incapacitate crew or passengers;
    (iii) Significant thrust in the opposite direction to that 
commanded by the pilot;
    (iv) Uncontrolled fire;
    (v) Failure of the engine mount system leading to inadvertent 
engine separation;
    (vi) Release of the propeller by the engine, if applicable; and
    (vii) Complete inability to shut the engine down.

[[Page 50868]]

    (3) An effect whose severity falls between those effects covered in 
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section will be regarded as a 
major engine effect.

0
5. Amend Sec.  33.76 to revise paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  33.76  Bird ingestion.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Ingestion of a single large bird tested under the conditions 
prescribed in this section may not result in any condition described in 
Sec.  33.75(g)(2) of this part.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 27, 2007.
Marion Blakey,
Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E7-17372 Filed 8-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P