This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

43674 

Vol. 71, No. 148 

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 35 

[Docket No. NE128; Notice No. 35–06–01– 

SC] 

Special Conditions: McCauley 

Propeller Systems, Model 3D15C1401/ 

C80MWX–X Propeller 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed special 

conditions. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes special 

conditions for McCauley Propeller 

Systems. This 3D15C1401/C80MWX–X 

model propeller will have a novel or 

unusual design features(s) associated 

with composite blades. The applicable 

airworthiness regulations do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards 

for this design feature. These proposed 

special conditions contain the added 

safety standards that the Administrator 

considers necessary to establish a level 

of safety equivalent to that established 

by the existing airworthiness standards. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

by September 1, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You must mail two copies 

of your comments to: Federal Aviation 

Administration, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Attn: Jay Turnberg, Rules 

Docket (ANE–110), Docket No. NE128, 

12 New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, Massachusetts 01803–5299. 

You may deliver two copies to the 

Engine and Propeller Directorate at the 

above address. You must mark your 

comments: Docket No. NE128 You can 

inspect comments in the Rules Docket 

weekdays, except Federal holidays, 

between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay 

Turnberg, ANE–110, Engine and 

Propeller Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, 

Massachusetts 01803–5299; telephone 

(781) 238–7116; fascimile (781) 238– 

7199; e-mail jay.turnberg@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited 

We invite interested people to take 

part in this rulemaking by sending 

written comments, data, or views. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the special 

conditions, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. We ask that you send 

us two copies of written comments. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

about these special conditions. You can 

inspect the docket before and after the 

comment closing date. If you wish to 

review the docket in person, go to the 

address in the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

We will consider all comments we 

receive by the closing date for 

comments. We will consider comments 

filed late if it is possible to do so 

without incurring expense or delay. We 

may change these special conditions 

based on the comments we receive. 

If you want us to let you know we 

received your comments on this 

proposal, send us a pre-addressed, 

stamped postcard on which the docket 

number appears. We will stamp the date 

on the postcard and mail it back to you. 

Background 

On November 29, 2004, McCauley 

Propeller applied for type certification 

for a new model 3D15C1401/C80MWX– 

X propeller. This propeller uses blades 

that are constructed of composite 

material. The blade has a carbon fiber 

spar, a shell composed of braided 

carbon fiber and fiberglass, and metallic 

leading edge erosion protection to give 

the material strength properties and 

durability. The material properties 

depend on the carbon fiber and 

fiberglass lay-up and the resin matrix 

material that bind the blade together. 

Composite materials introduce fatigue 

characteristics and failure modes that 

differ from metallic materials. 

The requirements of part 35 were 

established to address the airworthiness 

considerations associated with 

propellers with metallic hubs and 

blades. Propeller blades constructed 

using composite material may be subject 

to damage due to the high impact forces 

associated with a bird strike. 

In addition, part 35 does not require 

a demonstration of propeller integrity 

following a lightning strike. Composite 

blades may not safely conduct or 

dissipate the electrical current from a 

lightning strike. Severe damage can 

result if the propellers are not properly 

protected. Therefore, composite blades 

must demonstrate propeller integrity 

following a lightning strike. 

Lastly, the current certification 

requirements address structural and 

fatigue evaluation only of metal 

propeller blades or hubs and metal 

components of non-metallic blade 

assemblies. Allowable design stress 

limits for composite blades must 

consider the deteriorating effects of the 

environment and in-service use, 

particularly those effects from 

temperature, moisture, erosion and 

chemical attack. Composite blades also 

present new and different 

considerations for retention of the 

blades in the propeller hub. 

Type Certification Basis 

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, 

McCauley Propeller Systems must show 

that the Model 3D15C1401/C80MWX–X 

propeller meets the applicable 

provisions of § 21.21 and part 35. 

If the Administrator finds that the 

applicable airworthiness regulations 

(i.e., part 35) do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for the 

McCauley Propeller Systems Model 

3D15C1401/C80MWX–X propeller, 

because of a novel or unusual design 

feature, special conditions are 

prescribed under the provisions of 

§ 21.16. 

The FAA issues special conditions, as 

defined by 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance 

with 14 CFR 11.38, which become part 

of the type certification basis in 

accordance with § 21.17(a)(2). 

Special conditions are initially 

applicable to the model for which they 

are issued. Should the type certificate 

for that model be amended later to 

include any other model that 

incorporates the same or similar novel 

or unusual design feature, or should any 

other model already included on the 

same type certificate be modified to 

incorporate the same or similar novel or 

unusual design feature, the special 

mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 43675 

conditions would also apply to the other 

model under § 21.101(d). 

Novel or Unusual Design Features 

The McCauley Propeller Systems 

Model 3D15C1401/C80MWX–X will 

incorporate the following novel or 

unusual design features: Blades 

constructed of composite materials. 

Special conditions for centrifugal load 

tests, fatigue limits and evaluation, bird 

impact, and lightning strike are 

proposed to address the novel and 

unusual design features. The special 

conditions are discussed below. 

Discussion 

Centrifugal Load Tests 

Section 35.35 currently requires that 

the hub and blade retention 

arrangement of propellers with 

detachable blades be tested to a 

centrifugal load of twice the maximum 

centrifugal force to which the propeller 

would be subjected during operation. 

This requirement is limited to the blade 

and hub retention capacity and does not 

address composite materials and 

composite construction of the propeller 

assembly or changes in materials due to 

service degradation and environmental 

factors. 

Fatigue Limits and Evaluation 

The current requirement does not 

adequately address composite materials 

and is limited to metallic hubs and 

blades and primary load-carrying metal 

components of non-metallic blades. The 

proposed special conditions will 

expand the requirements to include all 

materials and components whose failure 

would cause a hazardous propeller 

effect and take into account material 

degradation expected in service, 

material property variations, 

manufacturing variations, and 

environmental effects. The proposed 

special conditions will clarify that the 

fatigue limits may be determined by 

tests or analysis based on tests. The 

components whose failure may cause a 

hazardous propeller effect include 

control system components, when 

applicable. 

The proposed special conditions will 

require the applicant to conduct fatigue 

evaluation on a typical aircraft or on an 

aircraft used during aircraft certification 

to conduct the vibration tests and 

evaluation required by either §§ 23.907 

or 25.907. The typical aircraft may be 

one used to develop design criteria for 

the propeller or another appropriate 

aircraft. 

Bird Impact 

Currently part 35 has no bird impact 

requirements. The existing requirements 

only address the airworthiness 

considerations associated with 

propellers that use wood and metal 

blades. Propeller blades of this type 

have demonstrated good service 

experience following a bird strike. 

Propeller blade and spinner 

construction now use composite 

materials that have a higher potential for 

damage from bird impact. 

The need for bird impact 

requirements was recognized when 

composite blades were introduced in 

the 1970’s; the safety issue has been 

addressed by special test and special 

conditions for composite blade 

certifications. These special conditions 

were unique for each propeller and 

effectively stated that the propeller will 

withstand a four-pound bird impact 

without contributing to a hazardous 

propeller effect. These special tests and 

special conditions have been effective 

for over fifty million flight hours. There 

have not been any accidents attributed 

to bird impact on composite propellers. 

The selection of a four-pound bird has 

been substantiated by the extensive 

service history of blades that have been 

designed using the four-pound bird 

criteria. 

Lightning Strike 

Currently part 35 has no lightning 

strike requirements. The need for 

lightning strike requirements was 

recognized when composite blades were 

first introduced in the 1970’s; the safety 

issue has been addressed by special 

tests and special condition for each 

design using composite blades. The 

special tests and special condition, 

which were unique for each propeller, 

effectively stated that the propeller must 

be able to withstand a lightning strike 

without contributing to a hazardous 

propeller effect. These special tests and 

special conditions have been effective 

for over fifty million flight hours. There 

have not been any accidents attributed 

to a lightning strike on composite 

propellers. 

Applicability 

As discussed above, these special 

conditions are applicable to McCauley 

propeller systems Model 3D15C1401/ 

C80MWX–X. If McCauley Propeller 

systems applies later for a change to the 

type certificate to include another 

model incorporating the same novel or 

unusual design feature, these special 

conditions would apply to that model as 

well. 

Conclusion 

This action affects only certain novel 

or unusual design features on one model 

of propellers. It is not a rule of general 

applicability, and it affects only the 

applicants who applied to the FAA for 

approval of these features on the 

propeller. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 35 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The authority citation for these 

special conditions is as follows: 

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

44702, 44704. 

The Proposed Special Conditions 

Accordingly, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) proposes the 

following special conditions as part of 

the type certification basis for McCauley 

Propeller Systems Model 3D15C1401/ 

C80MWX–X propellers. 

1. Definitions. Unless otherwise 

approved by the Administrator and 

documented in the appropriate manuals 

and certification documents, for 

compliance with these special 

conditions the following definitions 

apply to the propeller: 

(a) Propeller—the propeller is defined 

by the components listed in the type 

design. 

(b) Propeller system—the propeller 

system consists of the propeller plus all 

the components necessary for its 

functioning, but not necessarily 

included in the propeller type design. 

(c) Hazardous propeller effect—a 

hazardous propeller effect is: 

(1) A significant overspeed of the 

propeller. 

(2) The development of excessive 

drag. 

(3) A significant thrust in the opposite 

direction to that commanded by the 

pilot. 

(4) The release of the propeller or any 

major portion of the propeller. 

(5) A failure that results in excessive 

unbalance. 

(6) The unintended movement of the 

propeller blades below the established 

minimum in-flight low pitch position. 

(d) Major propeller effect—A major 

propeller effect is: 

(1) An inability to feather for 

feathering propellers. 

(2) An inability to command a change 

in propeller pitch. 

(3) A significant uncommanded 

change in pitch. 

(4) A significant uncontrollable torque 

or speed fluctuation. 

2. Centrifugal Load Tests. McCauley 

must demonstrate that the propeller, 

accounting for environmental 

degradation expected in service, 

complies with paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) 

of this section without evidence of 

failure, malfunction, or permanent 

mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS

43676 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

deformation that would result in a 

hazardous propeller effect. 

Environmental degradation may be 

accounted for by adjustment of the loads 

during the tests. 

(a) The hub, blade retention system, 

and counterweights must be tested for a 

period of one hour to a load equivalent 

to twice the maximum centrifugal load 

to which the propeller would be 

subjected during operation at the 

maximum declared rotational speed. 

(b) If appropriate, blade features 

associated with transitions to the 

retention system (for example a 

composite blade bonded to a metallic 

retention), must be tested either during 

the test of paragraph (a) of this section 

or in a separate component test. 

(c) Components used with or attached 

to the propeller (for example spinners, 

de-icing equipment, and blade shields) 

must be subjected to a load equivalent 

to 159 percent of the maximum 

centrifugal load to which the 

component would be subjected during 

operation within the limitations 

established for the propeller. This must 

be performed by either: 

(1) Testing at the load for a period of 

30 minutes, or 

(2) Analysis based on test. 

3. Fatigue Limits and Evaluation. 

(a) Fatigue limits. 

(1) Fatigue limits must be established 

by tests, or analysis based on tests, or 

propeller 

(i) Hubs. 

(ii) Blades. 

(iii) Blade retention components. 

(2) The fatigue limits must take into 

account: 

(i) All known and reasonably 

foreseeable vibration and cyclic load 

patterns that are expected in service, 

and 

(ii) Expected service deterioration, 

variations in material properties, 

manufacturing variations, and 

environmental effects. 

(b) A fatigue evaluation of the 

propeller must be conducted to show 

that hazardous propeller effects due to 

fatigue will be avoided throughout the 

intended operational life of the 

propeller on either: 

(1) The intended aircraft by 

complying with §§ 23.907 or 25.907 as 

applicable, or 

(2) A typical aircraft. 

4. Bird Impact Substantiation. 

McCauley must demonstrate, by tests or 

analysis based on tests or experience on 

similar designs, that the propeller is 

capable of withstanding the impact of a 

four-pound bird at the critical 

location(s) and critical flight 

condition(s) of the intended aircraft 

without causing a major or hazardous 

propeller effect. 

5. Lightning Strike Substantiation. 

McCauley must demonstrate, by test or 

analysis based on tests or experience on 

similar designs, that the propeller is 

capable of withstanding a lightning 

strike without causing a major or 

hazardous propeller effect. 

Dated: Issued in Burlington, 

Massachusetts, on July 24, 2006. 

Francis A. Favara, 

Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–6633 Filed 8–1–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–25332; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–CE–40–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; EADS 

SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This proposed 

AD results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued by an airworthiness authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The proposed AD would 

require actions that are intended to 

address an unsafe condition described 

in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 1, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to comment on this proposed 

AD: 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand delivery: Room PL–401 on the 

plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

the proposed AD, contact EADS 

SOCATA, Direction des Services, 65921 

Tarbes Cedex 9, France; telephone: 33 

(0)5 62.41.73.00; fax: 33 (0)5 

62.41.76.54; or SOCATA AIRCRAFT, 

INC., North Perry Airport, 7501 Airport 

Road, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023; 

telephone: (954) 893–1400; fax: (954) 

964–4141. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gunnar Berg, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4141; facsimile: 

(816) 329–4090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Streamlined Issuance of AD 

The FAA is implementing a new 

process for streamlining the issuance of 

ADs related to MCAI. We are 

prototyping this process and specifically 

request your comments on its use. You 

can find more information in FAA draft 

Order 8040.2, ‘‘Airworthiness Directive 

Process for Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information’’ which is 

currently open for comments at http:// 

www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs. This 

streamlined process will allow us to 

adopt MCAI safety requirements in a 

more efficient manner and will reduce 

safety risks to the public. 

This process continues to follow all 

existing AD issuance processes to meet 

legal, economic, Administrative 

Procedure Act, and Federal Register 

requirements. We also continue to 

follow our technical decision-making 

processes in all aspects to meet our 

responsibilities to determine and correct 

unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated 

products. 

This proposed AD references the 

MCAI and related service information 

that we considered in forming the 

engineering basis to correct the unsafe 

condition. The proposed AD contains 

text copied from the MCAI and for this 

reason might not follow our plain 

language principles. 

The comment period for this 

proposed AD is open for 30 days to 

allow time for comment on both the 

process and the AD content. In the 

future, ADs using this process will have 

a 15-day comment period. The comment 

period is reduced because the 

airworthiness authority and 

manufacturer have already published 

the documents on which we based our 

decision, making a longer comment 

period unnecessary. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS