Airworthiness Standards; Aircraft Engine Standards Overtorque Limits, 15955-15959 [E8-6148]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with section 6 of Executive
Order No. 13,132, 64 FR 43,255 (Aug. 4,
1999), this rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism summary
impact statement.
G. Executive Order 12,988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
This rule meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order No.12,988, 61
FR 4729 (Feb. 5, 1996).
H. Paperwork Reduction Act.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., all
Departments are required to submit to
OMB, for review and approval, any
reporting requirements inherent in a
rule. While employers seeking to
establish eligibility for the safe-harbor
are encouraged to keep a record of their
actions, this rule does not impose any
additional information collection
burden or affect information currently
collected by ICE.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 274a
Administrative practice and
procedure, Aliens, Employment,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in
the preamble to the proposed rule at 71
FR 34281 (June 14, 2006) and the
preamble to the final rule at 72 FR
45611 (Aug. 15, 2007), and as further
explained in the preamble to this
supplemental proposed rule, the
Department of Homeland Security
proposes to repromulgate, without
change, the regulations published at 72
FR 45611, as 8 CFR 274a.1(l).
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–6168 Filed 3–25–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–10–P
FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION
12 CFR Part 615
RIN 3052–AC25
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Funding and Fiscal Affairs, Loan
Policies and Operations, and Funding
Operations; Capital Adequacy—Basel
Accord
Farm Credit Administration.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM); extension of
comment period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Farm Credit
Administration (FCA, Agency or we) is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:09 Mar 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
extending the comment period on our
ANPRM that seeks comments to
facilitate the development of
enhancements to our regulatory capital
framework to more closely align
minimum capital requirements with
risks taken by Farm Credit System (FCS
or System) institutions. We are
extending the comment period so all
interested parties will have additional
time to provide comments.
DATES: You may send comments on or
before December 31, 2008.
ADDRESSES: We offer several methods
for the public to submit comments. For
accuracy and efficiency reasons,
commenters are encouraged to submit
comments by e-mail or through the
Agency’s Web site or the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Regardless of the
method you use, please do not submit
your comments multiple times via
different methods. You may submit
comments by any of the following
methods:
• E-mail: Send us an e-mail at: regcomm@fca.gov.
• Agency Web site: https://
www.fca.gov. Select ‘‘Legal Info,’’ then
‘‘Pending Regulations and Notices.’’
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Gary K. Van Meter, Deputy
Director, Office of Regulatory Policy,
Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm
Credit Drive, McLean, VA 22102–5090.
• Fax: (703) 883–4477. Posting and
processing of faxes may be delayed, as
faxes are difficult for us to process and
achieve compliance with section 508 of
the Rehabilitation Act. Please consider
another means to comment, if possible.
You may review copies of comments
we receive at our office in McLean,
Virginia, or on our Web site at: https://
www.fca.gov. Once you are in the Web
site, select ‘‘Legal Info,’’ and then select
‘‘Public Comments.’’ We will show your
comments as submitted, but for
technical reasons we may omit items
such as logos and special characters.
Identifying information that you
provide, such as phone numbers and
addresses, will be publicly available.
However, we will attempt to remove email addresses to help reduce Internet
spam.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurie Rea, Associate Director, Office of
Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit
Administration, McLean, VA 22102–
5090, (703) 883–4232, TTY (703) 883–
4434, or
Wade Wynn, Policy Analyst, Office of
Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit
Administration, McLean, VA 22102–
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15955
5090, (703) 883–4262, TTY (703) 883–
4434, or
Rebecca S. Orlich, Senior Counsel,
Office of General Counsel, Farm
Credit Administration, McLean, VA
22102–5090, (703) 883–4020, TTY
(703) 883–4020.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
October 31, 2007, FCA published a
notice in the Federal Register seeking
public comment to facilitate the
development of a proposed rule that
would enhance our regulatory capital
framework and more closely align
minimum capital requirements with
risks taken by System institutions. See
72 FR 61568. The comment period is
scheduled to expire on March 31, 2008.
In a letter dated March 4, 2008, the
Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding
Corporation, on behalf of the System
banks and associations, requested that
the Agency extend the comment period
until December 31, 2008. In view of the
number and the complexity of the
questions asked in the ANPRM, we have
granted this request. The FCA supports
public involvement and participation in
its regulatory process and invites all
interested parties to review and provide
comments on our ANPRM.
Dated: March 21, 2008.
Roland E. Smith,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. E8–6197 Filed 3–25–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6705–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 1 and 33
[Docket No. 2007–28502; Notice No. 07–09]
RIN No. 2120–AJ06
Airworthiness Standards; Aircraft
Engine Standards Overtorque Limits
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend
the certification standards for aircraft
engines to introduce requirements for
approval of maximum engine
overtorque. This action would add a
new engine overtorque test, amend
engine ratings and operating limitations,
and define maximum engine overtorque
for certain turbopropeller and turboshaft
engines. The proposed rule is intended
to harmonize applicable U.S. and
European standards and simplify
airworthiness approvals for import and
export of aircraft engines.
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
15956
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Send your comments on or
before June 24, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments
identified by Docket Number FAA–
2007–28502 using any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to:
https://www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
• Mail: Send comments to 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 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 https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide.
Using the search function of our docket
web site, anyone can find and read the
electronic form of all 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 on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78) or you
may visit https://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: To read background
documents or comments received, go to:
https://www.regulations.gov at any time
and follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket; or, go 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: For
technical questions concerning this
proposed rule contact Tim Mouzakis,
Engine and Propeller Directorate,
Standards Staff, ANE–110, Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), New
England Region, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington,
Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781)
238–7114; facsimile (781) 238–7199;
electronic mail
‘‘Timoleon.Mouzakis@faa.gov’’. For
legal questions concerning this
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:09 Mar 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
proposed rule contact Vincent Bennett,
Federal Aviation Administration, Office
of Regional Counsel (ANE–7), New
England Region, 12 New England
Executive Park, Room 311, Burlington,
MA 01803; telephone (781) 238–7044;
facsimile (781) 238–7055; electronic
mail Vincent.Bennett@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
documents.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA’s authority to issue rules on
aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the
United States Code. Subtitle I, Section
106 describes the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the
scope of the agency’s authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated
under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section
44701, ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under
that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations for 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 aircraft engine
standards overtorque limits.
Background
Part 33 of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR part 33) prescribes
airworthiness standards for original and
amended type certificates for aircraft
engines. The European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) Certification
Specification—Engines (CS–E)
prescribes corresponding airworthiness
standards for the certification of aircraft
engines in Europe. While part 33 and
the CS–E are similar, they differ in
several respects. For applicants seeking
certification under part 33 and CS–E,
these differences result in additional
costs and delays in the time required for
certification. In addition, because the
CS–E does contain specific standards for
the approval of maximum overtorque
limits, U.S. aircraft engine
manufacturers face additional costs
when seeking certification of their
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
engine designs by the JAA/EASA for
export.
Currently, part 33 does not contain
explicit standards for a maximum
engine overtorque limit. Engine
manufacturers apply for and obtain FAA
approvals of maximum overtorque
limits based on the results of
certification engine tests and analysis
that did not directly address
considerations for maximum overtorque
limits.
The FAA tasked the Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(ARAC),1 through its Engine
Harmonization Working Group (EHWG),
to provide advice and recommendations
on proposed standards for engine
overtorque. This proposed rule is based
on ARAC’s recommendations to the
FAA.
General Discussion of the Proposed
Rule
The proposed rule would establish a
standard for applicants to use in
applying for and obtaining approval of
a maximum overtorque limit. The
proposed rule would harmonize U.S.
and European standards for approving
engine overtorque transients for
turbopropeller and turboshaft engines
with free power-turbines. The proposed
rule would not permit an overtorque
limit for these engines when operating
at the 30-second and 2-minute one
engine inoperative (OEI) ratings.
This proposed rule addresses a
condition that can occur on
turbopropeller and turboshaft engines
with free power turbines. Sudden
changes in the rotorcraft/aircraft blade
pitch or power demand, such as an
engine failure on a twin engine
rotorcraft, can cause a significant
decrease in the rotor/propeller speed.
For a rotorcraft engine, overtorque
conditions may occur during the period
the engine is accelerating the rotor
system back to normal operating speeds.
This NPRM proposes requirements to
establish a maximum transient (20
seconds maximum) overtorque limit.
The torque transmitting components
in a free turbine engine are typically the
turbine blades, disks, shafts, and gears
(if an internal gearbox exists). Torque
has differing effects on the stress levels
in these components. For example, the
stresses in turbine blades and disks are
dominated by centrifugal loads and, to
a lesser extent, by temperature. The
effects of gas loads producing torque
have a minor effect on total stress in
these components. The stress levels of
components, such as shafts and gears,
1 Published in the Federal Register, October 20,
1998 (63 FR 56059).
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules
are typically dominated by the amount
of torque they are transmitting. Turbine
entry temperatures generally have little
effect on the stress levels in shafts and
gears. Typically, the time spent at
maximum steady state temperature and
high speed during the endurance test
(required by § 33.87) results in higher
turbine blade and disk stresses than
would occur during a maximum
overtorque event. Therefore, when the
evidence of the endurance tests can be
used to provide the substantiation
required during certification, the
requirement to run the overtorque test at
maximum steady state temperature may
be adjusted by other relevant factors.
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 new
information collection requirements
associated with this proposed rule.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
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 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, the 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,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:09 Mar 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 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 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 proposed rule. The reasoning for
this determination follows:
Currently, the FAA has no clear
standards in part 33 for approval of a
maximum overtorque limit. Engine
manufacturers have obtained FAA
approvals based on other certification
engine tests and analysis that did not
directly address the considerations for
the maximum overtorque limit. This has
allowed for different interpretations of
the data by different FAA offices.
Additionally, the Certification
Specifications Engines (CS-E) contain
specific standards for the approval of
maximum overtorque limits. These
differences result in additional costs
and delays for the U.S. aircraft engine
manufacturers when seeking
certification of their engine designs by
the EASA for export. The new proposed
rule will harmonize the U.S. and
European engine overtorque
requirements, which will eliminate
these additional costs and delays.
The FAA estimates there will be no
adverse effect as the proposal would
combine existing standards found in
part 33 into one single standard for
overtorque, and, as a result, either
reduce costs or impose no net costs on
aircraft engine manufacturers. This
proposed rule will reduce regulatory
barriers by establishing one standard
consistent with a similar EASA
standard. This benefit would justify its
costs and reduce barriers to
international trade.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15957
of the businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation. To achieve this principle,
agencies are required to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals
and to explain the rationale for their
actions to assure that such proposals are
given serious consideration.’’ The RFA
covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to
determine whether a rule will have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If
the agency determines that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis as described in the
RFA. However, if an agency determines
that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that
the head of the agency may so certify
and a regulatory flexibility analysis is
not required. The certification must
include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and
the reasoning should be clear.
This proposed rule merely revises and
clarifies FAA rulemaking procedures;
the expected outcome is to reduce
aircraft engine certification costs.
Therefore, the FAA certifies that this
proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The FAA solicits comments regarding
this determination.
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 has determined that it complies
with this Act as it would reduce trade
barriers by eliminating the enginecertification-requirement differences
related to overtorque between the
United States and European regulations.
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
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
15958
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules
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.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has 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.
The FAA has determined 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.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Additional Information
Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to
participate in this rulemaking by
submitting 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:09 Mar 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
supporting data. To ensure the docket
does not contain duplicate comments,
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.
Before acting on this proposal, we will
consider all comments we receive on or
before the closing date for comments.
We will consider comments filed after
the comment period has closed if it is
possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. We may change this
proposal in light of the comments we
receive.
Proprietary or Confidential Business
Information
Do not file in the docket information
that you consider to be 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 also 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 of
rulemaking documents using the
Internet by—
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking
Portal (https://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and
Policies Web page at: https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to
identify the docket number, notice
number, or amendment number of this
rulemaking.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 1
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Safety.
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 parts 1 and 33 of
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR parts 1 and 33) as follows:
PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND
ABBREVIATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 1
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–
44702, 44704.
2. Amend § 1.1 by adding the
definition of ‘‘Maximum engine
overtorque’’ in alphabetical order, to
read as follows:
§ 1.1
General definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Maximum engine overtorque, as it
applies to turbopropeller and turboshaft
engines incorporating free powerturbines for all ratings except one
engine inoperative (OEI) ratings of two
minutes or less, means the maximum
torque of the free power-turbine rotor
assembly, the inadvertent occurrence of
which, for periods of up to 20 seconds,
will not require rejection of the engine
from service, or any maintenance action
other than to correct the cause.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 33—AIRWORTHINESS
STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES
3. The authority citation for part 33
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–
44702, 44704.
4. Amend § 33.7 by adding new
paragraph (c)(17) as follows:
§ 33.7 Engine ratings and operating
limitations.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(17) Maximum engine overtorque for
turbopropeller and turboshaft engines
incorporating free power-turbines.
5. Section 33.84 is added to read as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules
§ 33.84.
Engine Overtorque Test.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
(a) If approval of a maximum engine
overtorque is sought for an engine
incorporating a free power turbine,
compliance with this section must be
demonstrated by testing.
(1) The test may be run as part of the
endurance test requirement of § 33.87.
Alternatively, tests may be performed
on a complete engine or equivalent
testing on individual groups of
components.
(2) Upon conclusion of tests
conducted to show compliance with
this section, each engine part or
individual groups of components must
meet the requirements of § 33.93(a)(1)
and (a)(2).
(b) The test conditions must be as
follows:
(1) A total of 15 minutes run at the
maximum engine overtorque to be
approved. This may be done in separate
runs, each being of at least 21⁄2 minutes
duration.
(2) A power turbine rotational speed
equal to the highest speed at which the
maximum overtorque can occur in
service. The test speed may not be more
than the limit speed of take-off or OEI
ratings longer than 2 minutes.
(3) For engines incorporating a
reduction gearbox, a gearbox oil
temperature equal to the maximum
temperature when the maximum engine
overtorque could occur in service; and
for all other engines, an oil temperature
within the normal operating range.
(4) A turbine entry gas temperature
equal to the maximum steady state
temperature approved for use during
periods longer than 20 seconds, other
than conditions associated with 30second or 2-minutes OEI ratings. The
requirement to run the test at the
maximum approved steady state
temperature may be waived by the FAA
if the applicant can demonstrate that
other testing provides substantiation of
the temperature effects when considered
in combination with the other
parameters identified in paragraphs
(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 20,
2008.
John J. Hickey,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8–6148 Filed 3–25–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2008–0357; Directorate
Identifier 2008–NM–005–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 737–300, –400, and –500 Series
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Boeing Model 737–300, –400, and –500
series airplanes. This proposed AD
would require repetitive inspections for
discrepancies of the fuse pins of the
inboard and outboard midspar fittings of
the nacelle strut, and corrective actions
if necessary. This proposed AD results
from a report of corrosion damage of the
chrome runout on the head side found
on all four midspar fuse pins of the
nacelle strut. Additionally, a large
portion of the chrome plate was missing
from the corroded area of the shank. We
are proposing this AD to detect and
correct discrepancies of the fuse pins of
the inboard and outboard midspar
fittings of the nacelle strut, which could
result in reduced structural integrity of
the fuse pins and consequent loss of the
strut and separation of the engine from
the airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by May 12, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124–2207.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at: https://
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:09 Mar 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15959
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(telephone 800–647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Allen Rauschendorfer, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S,
FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; telephone
(425) 917–6432; fax (425) 917–6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments
to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2008–0357; Directorate Identifier
2008–NM–005–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD because of those
comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to: https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
Discussion
We have received a report of
corrosion damage of the chrome runout
on the head side found on all four
midspar fuse pins of the nacelle strut on
a Model 737–300 airplane. Additionally,
a large portion of the chrome plate was
missing from the corroded area of the
shank. The airplane had a total of
28,621 flight cycles. This condition, if
not corrected, could result in
discrepancies of the fuse pins of the
inboard and outboard midspar fittings of
the nacelle strut, reduced structural
integrity of the fuse pins, and
consequent loss of the strut and
separation of the engine from the
airplane.
Relevant Service Information
We have reviewed Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737–54–
1044, dated December 10, 2007. The
service bulletin describes procedures for
E:\FR\FM\26MRP1.SGM
26MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 26, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15955-15959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-6148]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 1 and 33
[Docket No. 2007-28502; Notice No. 07-09]
RIN No. 2120-AJ06
Airworthiness Standards; Aircraft Engine Standards Overtorque
Limits
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend the certification standards for
aircraft engines to introduce requirements for approval of maximum
engine overtorque. This action would add a new engine overtorque test,
amend engine ratings and operating limitations, and define maximum
engine overtorque for certain turbopropeller and turboshaft engines.
The proposed rule is intended to harmonize applicable U.S. and European
standards and simplify airworthiness approvals for import and export of
aircraft engines.
[[Page 15956]]
DATES: Send your comments on or before June 24, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-
28502 using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to: https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to 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 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
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket web site, anyone can
find and read the electronic form of all 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 on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you
may visit https://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to:
https://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket; or, go 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: For technical questions concerning
this proposed rule contact Tim Mouzakis, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, Standards Staff, ANE-110, Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 238-7114; facsimile (781) 238-
7199; electronic mail ``Timoleon.Mouzakis@faa.gov''. For legal
questions concerning this proposed rule contact Vincent Bennett,
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Regional Counsel (ANE-7),
New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Room 311,
Burlington, MA 01803; telephone (781) 238-7044; facsimile (781) 238-
7055; electronic mail Vincent.Bennett@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 documents.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations for 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 aircraft engine standards overtorque limits.
Background
Part 33 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 33)
prescribes airworthiness standards for original and amended type
certificates for aircraft engines. The European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) Certification Specification--Engines (CS-E) prescribes
corresponding airworthiness standards for the certification of aircraft
engines in Europe. While part 33 and the CS-E are similar, they differ
in several respects. For applicants seeking certification under part 33
and CS-E, these differences result in additional costs and delays in
the time required for certification. In addition, because the CS-E does
contain specific standards for the approval of maximum overtorque
limits, U.S. aircraft engine manufacturers face additional costs when
seeking certification of their engine designs by the JAA/EASA for
export.
Currently, part 33 does not contain explicit standards for a
maximum engine overtorque limit. Engine manufacturers apply for and
obtain FAA approvals of maximum overtorque limits based on the results
of certification engine tests and analysis that did not directly
address considerations for maximum overtorque limits.
The FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(ARAC),\1\ through its Engine Harmonization Working Group (EHWG), to
provide advice and recommendations on proposed standards for engine
overtorque. This proposed rule is based on ARAC's recommendations to
the FAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Published in the Federal Register, October 20, 1998 (63 FR
56059).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Discussion of the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would establish a standard for applicants to use
in applying for and obtaining approval of a maximum overtorque limit.
The proposed rule would harmonize U.S. and European standards for
approving engine overtorque transients for turbopropeller and
turboshaft engines with free power-turbines. The proposed rule would
not permit an overtorque limit for these engines when operating at the
30-second and 2-minute one engine inoperative (OEI) ratings.
This proposed rule addresses a condition that can occur on
turbopropeller and turboshaft engines with free power turbines. Sudden
changes in the rotorcraft/aircraft blade pitch or power demand, such as
an engine failure on a twin engine rotorcraft, can cause a significant
decrease in the rotor/propeller speed. For a rotorcraft engine,
overtorque conditions may occur during the period the engine is
accelerating the rotor system back to normal operating speeds. This
NPRM proposes requirements to establish a maximum transient (20 seconds
maximum) overtorque limit.
The torque transmitting components in a free turbine engine are
typically the turbine blades, disks, shafts, and gears (if an internal
gearbox exists). Torque has differing effects on the stress levels in
these components. For example, the stresses in turbine blades and disks
are dominated by centrifugal loads and, to a lesser extent, by
temperature. The effects of gas loads producing torque have a minor
effect on total stress in these components. The stress levels of
components, such as shafts and gears,
[[Page 15957]]
are typically dominated by the amount of torque they are transmitting.
Turbine entry temperatures generally have little effect on the stress
levels in shafts and gears. Typically, the time spent at maximum steady
state temperature and high speed during the endurance test (required by
Sec. 33.87) results in higher turbine blade and disk stresses than
would occur during a maximum overtorque event. Therefore, when the
evidence of the endurance tests can be used to provide the
substantiation required during certification, the requirement to run
the overtorque test at maximum steady state temperature may be adjusted
by other relevant factors.
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 new information collection requirements associated with this
proposed rule.
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 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, the 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 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 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 proposed rule. The
reasoning for this determination follows:
Currently, the FAA has no clear standards in part 33 for approval
of a maximum overtorque limit. Engine manufacturers have obtained FAA
approvals based on other certification engine tests and analysis that
did not directly address the considerations for the maximum overtorque
limit. This has allowed for different interpretations of the data by
different FAA offices. Additionally, the Certification Specifications
Engines (CS-E) contain specific standards for the approval of maximum
overtorque limits. These differences result in additional costs and
delays for the U.S. aircraft engine manufacturers when seeking
certification of their engine designs by the EASA for export. The new
proposed rule will harmonize the U.S. and European engine overtorque
requirements, which will eliminate these additional costs and delays.
The FAA estimates there will be no adverse effect as the proposal
would combine existing standards found in part 33 into one single
standard for overtorque, and, as a result, either reduce costs or
impose no net costs on aircraft engine manufacturers. This proposed
rule will reduce regulatory barriers by establishing one standard
consistent with a similar EASA standard. This benefit would justify its
costs and reduce barriers to international trade.
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.
This proposed rule merely revises and clarifies FAA rulemaking
procedures; the expected outcome is to reduce aircraft engine
certification costs. Therefore, the FAA certifies that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this
determination.
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 has determined that it
complies with this Act as it would reduce trade barriers by eliminating
the engine-certification-requirement differences related to overtorque
between the United States and European regulations.
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
[[Page 15958]]
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.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has 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. The FAA has
determined 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 submitting 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, 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. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information
Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be
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 also 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 of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://
www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at: https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 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 docket number, notice number, or amendment number
of this rulemaking.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 1
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
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 parts 1 and 33 of Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR parts 1 and 33) as follows:
PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
2. Amend Sec. 1.1 by adding the definition of ``Maximum engine
overtorque'' in alphabetical order, to read as follows:
Sec. 1.1 General definitions.
* * * * *
Maximum engine overtorque, as it applies to turbopropeller and
turboshaft engines incorporating free power-turbines for all ratings
except one engine inoperative (OEI) ratings of two minutes or less,
means the maximum torque of the free power-turbine rotor assembly, the
inadvertent occurrence of which, for periods of up to 20 seconds, will
not require rejection of the engine from service, or any maintenance
action other than to correct the cause.
* * * * *
PART 33--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES
3. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
4. Amend Sec. 33.7 by adding new paragraph (c)(17) as follows:
Sec. 33.7 Engine ratings and operating limitations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(17) Maximum engine overtorque for turbopropeller and turboshaft
engines incorporating free power-turbines.
5. Section 33.84 is added to read as follows:
[[Page 15959]]
Sec. 33.84. Engine Overtorque Test.
(a) If approval of a maximum engine overtorque is sought for an
engine incorporating a free power turbine, compliance with this section
must be demonstrated by testing.
(1) The test may be run as part of the endurance test requirement
of Sec. 33.87. Alternatively, tests may be performed on a complete
engine or equivalent testing on individual groups of components.
(2) Upon conclusion of tests conducted to show compliance with this
section, each engine part or individual groups of components must meet
the requirements of Sec. 33.93(a)(1) and (a)(2).
(b) The test conditions must be as follows:
(1) A total of 15 minutes run at the maximum engine overtorque to
be approved. This may be done in separate runs, each being of at least
2\1/2\ minutes duration.
(2) A power turbine rotational speed equal to the highest speed at
which the maximum overtorque can occur in service. The test speed may
not be more than the limit speed of take-off or OEI ratings longer than
2 minutes.
(3) For engines incorporating a reduction gearbox, a gearbox oil
temperature equal to the maximum temperature when the maximum engine
overtorque could occur in service; and for all other engines, an oil
temperature within the normal operating range.
(4) A turbine entry gas temperature equal to the maximum steady
state temperature approved for use during periods longer than 20
seconds, other than conditions associated with 30-second or 2-minutes
OEI ratings. The requirement to run the test at the maximum approved
steady state temperature may be waived by the FAA if the applicant can
demonstrate that other testing provides substantiation of the
temperature effects when considered in combination with the other
parameters identified in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this
section.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 20, 2008.
John J. Hickey,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8-6148 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
