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

18136 

Vol. 72, No. 69 

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 23, 25, 33, and 35 

[Docket No. FAA 2007–27310; Notice No. 

07–04] 

RIN 2120–AI95 

Airworthiness Standards; Propellers 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) is proposing to 

revise the airworthiness standards for 

the issuance of original and amended 

type certificates for airplane propellers. 

The existing propeller requirements do 

not adequately address the 

technological advances of the past 

twenty years. The proposed standards 

would address the current advances in 

technology and would harmonize FAA 

and European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) propeller certification 

requirements, thereby simplifying 

airworthiness approvals for imports and 

exports. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 11, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket No. FAA–2007– 

27310, using any of the following 

methods: 

DOT Docket Web site: Got 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– 

001 

Fax: 1–202–493–2251 

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 more information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information that you provide. For more 

information, see the Privacy Act 

discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to 

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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay 

Turnberg, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate Standards Staff, ANE–110, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 12 

New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, Massachusetts 01803–5299; 

telephone (781) 238–7116; facsimile 

(781) 238–7199, e-mail: 

jay.turnberg@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in rulemaking by submitting 

written data, views, or arguments on 

this proposed rule. We also invite 

comments relating to the environmental, 

energy, federalism, or economic impact 

that might result from adopting the 

proposals in this notice. The most 

helpful comments reference a specific 

portion of the proposal, 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 

concerning this proposed rulemaking. 

The docket is available for public 

inspection 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. 

You may also review the docket using 

the Internet at the web address in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Privacy Act: Using the search function 

of our docket Web site, anyone can find 

and read the comments received into 

any of our dockets, including the name 

of the individual sending the comment 

(or signing the comment 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 

(65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

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 late if it is possible to do so 

without incurring expense or delay. We 

may change this proposal in light of the 

comments we receive. 

If you want the FAA to acknowledge 

receipt of your comments on this 

proposal, include with your comments 

a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on 

which the docket number appears. We 

will stamp the date on the postcard and 

mail it to you. 

Availability of NPRMs 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by: 

1. Searching the Department of 

Transportation’s electronic Docket 

Management System (DMS) Web page 

(http://dms.dot.gov/search); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the docket number, notice 

number, or amendment number of this 

rulemaking. 

Background 

Advances in technology have meant 

that many propeller certification 

programs over the past decade have 

required repeated application of special 

conditions or special tests. In addition, 

the need to demonstrate compliance 

with both FAA and EASA requirements 

has placed additional burdens on 

propeller manufacturers who require 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18137 

foreign certification. Therefore, we 

concluded that part 35 should be 

substantially revised. 

In 1994, the FAA began an initiative 

to harmonize FAA propeller 

certification requirements with Europe’s 

Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) 

regulations (now the EASA certification 

specifications). As part of this effort, the 

FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking 

Advisory Committee through its Engine 

Harmonization Working Group (EHWG) 

to compare part 35 with JAA 

requirements, and identify differences. 

The EHWG was also to update existing 

requirements to reflect advancements in 

propeller design, including design and 

construction of composite material 

propellers, propeller control systems 

(such as dual acting control systems), 

and electronic controls for propellers. 

To complete this task, the EHWG 

established the Propeller Harmonization 

Working Group, with members from 

industry and government from Canada, 

France, Germany, United Kingdom, and 

the United States. The Propeller 

Harmonization Working Group focused 

on requirement differences between part 

35 and Joint Aviation Requirements—

Propellers (JAR–P) in six areas: 

1. Those in part 35, but not in JAR–

P; 

2. Those in both part 35 and JAR–P, 

but not accepted as equivalent for both; 

3. Those accepted as equivalent for 

both part 35 and JAR–P; 

4. Those in which intent is not clear; 

5. Those that may be simplified or 

deleted; and 

6. Those that are new requirements 

not in either part 35 or JAR–P. 

This NPRM proposes to harmonize 

FAA part 35 propeller certification 

requirements with most of the 

requirements of EASA’s Certification 

Specifications for Propellers (CS–P). 

Reference Material 

We relied on the following material as 

a basis for this proposed rule: 

1. Special Conditions No. 35–ANE–

01, Hamilton Standard Model 247F 

Propeller, Docket No. 94–ANE–50. 

2. Special Conditions No. 35–ANE–

02, Hamilton Standard Model 568F 

Propeller, Docket No. 94–ANE–60. 

3. Special Conditions No. 35–ANE–

03, Hamilton Standard Model 568F 

Propeller, Docket No. 94–ANE–61. 

4. Special Conditions SC–92–03–NE, 

Hartzell Propeller, Inc. Model HD–E6C–

3( )/E13482K Dual Acting Propeller, 

Docket No. 92–ANE–47. 

5. Joint Airworthiness 

Requirements—Propellers, JAR–P, 

Change 7, October 22, 1987. 

6. Certification Specifications for 

Propellers (CS–P), Decision No. 2003/7/ 

RM, October 24, 2003. 

7. 14 CFR Part 21, Certification 

Procedures for Products and Parts. 

8. 14 CFR Part 23, Airworthiness 

Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, 

and Commuter Category Airplanes. 

9. 14 CFR Part 25, Airworthiness 

Standards: Transport Category 

Airplanes. 

10. 14 CFR Part 33, Airworthiness 

Standards: Engines. 

11. 14 CFR Part 35, Airworthiness 

Standards: Propellers. 

Section-by-Section Discussion of the 

Proposals 

Sections 23.905 and 25.905 Propellers 

and Section 33.19 Durability 

We propose requiring that propeller 

controls that are certified as part of the 

airplane or engine type design meet the 

same requirements as propeller controls 

that are certified as part of the propeller 

type design. 

Sections 23.907 and 25.907 Propeller 

Vibration and Fatigue 

We propose revising §§ 23.907 and 

25.907 to make them identical, and 

changing the titles of both sections from 

‘‘Propeller vibration’’ to ‘‘Propeller 

vibration and fatigue,’’ to reflect the 

revised requirements. 

These sections require that a propeller 

demonstrate safe vibration compatibility 

with the airplane; they harmonize with 

CS–P 530, Vibration and Aeroelastic 

Effects and CS–P 550, Fatigue 

Evaluation. The vibration evaluation of 

a propeller on an airplane involves both 

vibration and fatigue requirements. The 

vibration evaluation of the propeller 

depends on the airplane and engine 

installation; the proposed requirements 

would show this dependency. 

The current requirements differ for 

part 23 and 25 airplanes and fail to 

address important areas. They do not 

address fatigue evaluation or require 

comparison to the fatigue limits and 

other structural data established in part 

35. They do not require a revision of the 

propeller operating and airworthiness 

limitations, and they fail to address the 

flutter requirements of EASA’s 

Certification Specifications for 

Propellers (CS–P). In the case of 

§ 23.907, they permit the use of service 

experience to show compliance, which 

is an unsatisfactory method to show the 

safety of the installation. 

Our proposed new paragraph (a) for 

§§ 23.907 and 25.907 would require that 

applicants determine the stresses 

throughout the declared operational 

envelope of the airplane. It would 

permit applicants to determine stresses 

by analysis based on direct testing or by 

interpolation and measured data 

extrapolation if testing the entire 

airplane operational envelope is not 

feasible. The paragraph would also 

permit the determination of stress by 

comparison with a similar airplane for 

which these measurements were made. 

Our proposed paragraph, however, 

would not permit the use of service 

experience to determine stresses. 

Proposed paragraph (a) harmonizes 

with CS–P 530(b) by requiring that 

applicants investigate stress peaks or 

resonant conditions. 

Proposed paragraph (b) harmonizes 

with CS–P 530(a) by requiring that 

applicants address flutter. 

Proposed paragraph (c) would 

harmonize with CS–P 550 by requiring 

that applicants conduct a fatigue 

evaluation on the propeller. It would 

also harmonize with CS–P 550 by 

requiring that applicants revise the 

airplane and propeller operating and 

airworthiness limitations sections as 

needed to show compliance with the 

fatigue requirements. 

Prior to the propeller vibration and 

fatigue evaluation for the airplane 

installation, the propeller undergoes a 

substantial amount of structural 

evaluation during its certification to 

show compliance with part 35. 

Proposed paragraph (c) would require 

that the data obtained from the part 35 

evaluation be used in the propeller 

fatigue evaluation. 

Section 25.901 Installation 

We propose to add a reference in this 

section to the propeller installation 

instructions in § 35.3 to ensure that part 

25 airplane comply with the installation 

instructions for the propeller. 

Part 35—Airworthiness Standards: 

Propellers 

We propose to renumber certain part 

35 regulations to harmonize part 35 

with EASA’s CS–P. Part 35 designation 

will differ from the CS–P designation by 

a zero added to the CS–P designation. 

For example, our proposed § 35.35 

Centrifugal load tests will be equivalent 

to the CS–P 350 Centrifugal Load Tests. 

Subpart A—General 

This subpart addresses the 

requirements for issuing propeller type 

certificates and changes to those type 

certificates. Our proposed revisions 

clarify the propeller configuration to be 

certificated; list the requirements for 

installing and operating the propeller; 

and specify ratings and operating 

limitations. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
18138 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Section 35.1 Applicability 

We propose adding a new paragraph 

(c) to establish the relationship between 

propeller and airplane certification. 

We propose adding a paragraph (d) to 

refine the propeller definition for this 

part. Paragraph (d) would define a 

propeller and propeller system 

consistent with how those terms are 

used in part 35. 

Section 35.2 Propeller Configuration 

and Identification 

We propose a new § 35.2(a) that 

would require the applicant to provide 

a list of all the components and parts, 

including references to the relevant 

drawings and software design data, that 

defines the type design of the propeller 

the applicant wants approved. This 

requirement would improve the 

documentation regarding the propeller 

components that is included within the 

propeller type design. 

We propose a new § 35.2(b) that 

would reinforce the link between parts 

35 and 45 and harmonize with the CS–

P. 

Section 35.3 Instructions for Propeller 

Installation and Operation 

We propose to revise § 35.3 to require 

specific content in propeller installation 

and operation instructions. The revision 

would require applicants to prepare 

installation instructions containing the 

data required by the airplane 

manufacturer to install and operate the 

propeller within the limitations of the 

propeller type design. 

The proposed revision would rename 

§ 35.3 to ‘‘Instructions for propeller 

installation and operation’’ to reflect the 

revised requirements. 

Section 35.5 Propeller Ratings and 

Operating Limitations 

We propose revising § 35.5 by 

modifying the requirements about 

establishing ratings and operating 

limitations. In our proposed paragraph 

(a), the applicant would establish the 

ratings and operating limitations, which 

would be subject to approval by the 

Administrator. This change reflects the 

process used now to establish the 

propeller limitations and ratings. 

We propose adding paragraph (b), 

which lists specific ratings and limits 

applicants must address. The list would 

include ratings for takeoff power and 

rotational speed, maximum continuous 

power and rotational speed. The 

proposed paragraph would also 

document transient overspeed and 

overtorque limits that would not require 

maintenance. The overspeed and 

overtorque limits are intended for 

inadvertent or maintenance use. 

Our proposed list in paragraph (b) 

does not represent all the ratings and 

operating limits that may be required for 

safe propeller operation. Paragraph (a) 

would state that the ratings and 

operating limitations must include 

limitations based on the operating 

conditions demonstrated during the 

tests required by this part and any other 

information necessary for safe propeller 

operation. 

We propose changing the title of 

§ 35.5 to ‘‘Propeller ratings and 

operating limitations’’ to reflect the 

revised requirements and to harmonize 

with CS–P 50, Propeller Ratings and 

Operating Limitations. 

Section 35.7 Features and 

Characteristics 

We propose a new § 35.7 that will 

incorporate requirements formerly in 

§ 35.15, Design features. 

The proposed § 35.7(a) requires that a 

propeller not have any features or 

characteristics that make it unsafe for 

the purposes for which it is being 

certified. 

The proposed § 35.7(b) indicates the 

applicant’s responsibilities if a failure 

occurs during a certification test. 

Subpart B—Design and Construction 

Part 35 subpart B addresses design 

and construction requirements for 

propellers. This proposed revision 

would maintain the intent of the current 

subpart. We propose, however, to 

remove sections that are redundant or 

no longer applicable and to revise or 

add sections that address existing and 

future design and construction 

technology not adequately covered by 

the current requirements. 

Section 35.11 Applicability 

Section 35.11 is a descriptive 

statement about subpart B compliance 

that is fully addressed within § 35.1. 

Therefore, we propose to remove § 35.11 

and mark the section ‘‘reserved.’’

Section 35.13 General 

Section 35.13 is a descriptive 

statement about subpart B compliance 

that is fully addressed within § 35.1. 

Therefore, we propose to remove § 35.13 

and mark the section ‘‘reserved.’’

Section 35.15 Safety Analysis 

We propose to revise § 35.15, Design 

features, and rename it ‘‘Safety 

analysis’’ to reflect its revised 

requirements. 

Our proposed revision would require 

that applicants conduct a safety analysis 

of the propeller. Safety analysis has 

been used to show compliance with the 

current requirement for the majority of 

new propeller certification programs 

during the past decade. The ultimate 

objective of the safety analysis is to 

ensure that the collective risk from all 

propeller failure conditions is 

acceptably low. The basis of safety 

analysis is the concept that an 

acceptable total propeller design risk is 

achievable by managing individual risks 

to acceptable levels. This concept 

emphasizes reducing the risk of an 

event proportionally with the severity of 

the hazard it represents. 

Our proposed revision would add 

definitions for hazardous and major 

propeller effects, based on CS–P, 

historical JAR–P requirements, and the 

propeller special conditions listed 

under ‘‘Reference Material.’’ These 

definitions would be used throughout 

part 35 and would only apply to this 

part. 

Showing compliance with the 

requirements of this section would not 

mean that a propeller is suitable for use 

on all or any airplane. For example, a 

part 25 airplane may require different 

failure effects and probabilities of 

failure than a part 23 airplane would. 

Section 35.17 Materials and 

Manufacturing Methods 

We propose to revise and rename this 

section from ‘‘Materials’’ to ‘‘Materials 

and manufacturing methods’’ to reflect 

the revised requirements. Our proposed 

revision would require that the 

materials specifications and 

manufacturing methods used by 

applicants be acceptable to the FAA. 

The revision would remove the list of 

examples of approved specifications 

and change the word ‘‘approved’’ to 

‘‘acceptable.’’ This change would reflect 

the level of review of the specifications 

by the FAA. 

Our proposed revision would also 

require that applicants consider the 

effects of environmental conditions 

expected in service when assessing 

material suitability and durability. We 

are including consideration for 

environmental effects in this proposed 

section because many materials used in 

the propeller design depend on the 

environment in which the propeller 

operates. This is especially relevant for 

composite materials that have agedependent properties, as well as 

properties affected by humidity and 

temperature. 

Our proposed revision would also 

harmonize with CS–P requirements by 

requiring that applicants use the most 

adverse properties stated in the 

accepted specifications of their design 

values. This clarification would prevent 

misinterpretations regarding the 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18139 

application of material properties to the 

propeller design. 

Section 35.21 Variable and Reversible 

Pitch Propellers 

We propose to revise and rename this 

section to from ‘‘Reversible propellers’’

to ‘‘Variable and reversible pitch 

propellers’’ to reflect the revised 

requirements. The revision would 

incorporate the current pitch control 

and indication requirements of 

§ 35.23(c). It would also expand the 

current § 35.23(c) requirement to 

include all airplane installations with 

reversible propellers, including 

reciprocating engine aircraft, because 

the flight safety aspect of this rule 

applies regardless of engine type. 

Proposed § 35.21 harmonizes with CS–

P 210, Variable and Reversible Pitch 

Propellers. 

Section 35.22 Feathering Propellers 

We propose a new § 35.22 that will 

incorporate requirements for feathering 

propellers currently located in 

§ 35.23(b) and in CS–P 220, ‘‘Feathering 

Propellers.’’ We would incorporate the 

requirements of CS–P 220(a) into 

paragraph (a), which would require 

feathering propellers be designed to 

feather from all conditions in flight, 

taking into account expected wear and 

leakage. It would also require that 

applicants document the feathering 

characteristics and limitations in the 

appropriate manuals. 

We would move the feathering 

requirements of the current § 35.23(b) to 

the new § 35.22(b). 

We propose that the requirements of 

CS–P 220(c) be incorporated into 

paragraph (c). This paragraph would 

require the applicant to design the 

propeller to be capable of unfeathering 

at the minimum declared outside air 

temperature after stabilization to a 

steady-state temperature. 

Section 35.23 Propeller Control System 

We propose to revise and rename 

§ 35.23 from ‘‘Pitch control and 

indication’’ to ‘‘Propeller control 

system’’ to reflect the revised 

requirements and to harmonize with 

CS–P 230. We would retain and revise 

current paragraph (a), redesignate and 

revise current paragraph (c) as 

§ 35.21(b), redesignate and revise 

current paragraph (b) as § 35.22(b), and 

add several new paragraphs. 

Our proposed § 35.23 would address 

propeller control design requirements 

concerning loss of normal control that 

may cause hazardous overspeeding and 

an alternative means to override or 

bypass the engine oil system for 

propellers that use engine oil to feather. 

It would also add requirements that 

address control system description, 

design, construction, validation, and 

software design, for all types of 

propeller mechanical, hydraulic, and 

electronic control systems. 

Our proposed § 35.23(a)(1) would 

ensure that the control system, 

operating in normal and alternative 

modes and transitions between 

operating modes, performs the intended 

functions throughout the declared 

operating conditions and flight 

envelope. This requirement does not 

mandate flight test on an airplane. 

Substantiation by propeller tests, rig 

tests, airplane tests, analysis or a 

combination of these would be 

acceptable. 

Our proposed § 35.23(a)(2) would 

ensure that the control system 

functionality is not adversely affected 

by declared environmental conditions. 

Our proposed § 35.23(a)(3) would 

ensure that applicants provide methods 

to indicate to the flight crew, if crew 

action is required, that a mode change 

has occurred. 

Our proposed § 35.23(b) would add 

system safety requirements in addition 

to those in § 35.15. Paragraph (b)(1) 

would require that no single failure or 

malfunction of electronic or electrical 

components result in a hazardous 

propeller effect. Paragraph (b)(2) would 

address the relationship between 

failures of the linkages from the airplane 

to the propeller control, and the effects 

that airplane fires and overheating have 

on the propeller control. Paragraph 

(b)(3) would adopt the requirements of 

the current § 35.23(a). Paragraph (b)(4) 

would address the effect of isolation 

between propellers on an airplane. 

Our proposed § 35.23(c) would add a 

requirement that all software be 

designed and implemented by a method 

approved by the FAA. It would require 

that the software design be consistent 

with the criticality of the performed 

functions to minimize the existence of 

software errors. 

Our proposed § 35.23(d) would add 

requirements for airplane-supplied data 

so that no single failure or malfunction 

of airplane-supplied data would result 

in a hazardous propeller effect. 

Our proposed § 35.23(e) would add 

requirements for airplane-supplied 

electrical power so that abnormalities of 

the power supply would not result in 

hazardous effects and would not require 

a declaration of the validated power 

supply characteristics. 

Section 35.24 Strength 

We propose adding a new § 35.24 to 

establish strength requirements for 

propellers consistent with those 

required by CS–P 240. 

Subpart C—Type Substantiation 

We propose to remove those 

regulations in this subpart that are 

redundant or no longer apply and to 

modify and add sections to reflect 

existing industry practices. We also 

propose to change the subpart heading 

from ‘‘Tests and Inspections’’ to ‘‘Type 

Substantiation,’’ since subpart C applies 

to both testing and analysis. 

Section 35.31 Applicability 

We propose to remove the content of 

§ 35.31 and to mark the section 

‘‘reserved’’ since § 35.31 is a descriptive 

statement about subpart C and not a 

requirement. 

Section 35.33 General 

Section 35.33(a) does not adequately 

address part 21 certification 

requirements. We propose, therefore, to 

revise § 35.33(a) to identify that the 

testing conducted in this subpart is also 

governed by the test requirements 

established in part 21. 

We propose a new § 35.33(b) and (c) 

to harmonize with CS–P 330(b), which 

requires that automatic controls operate 

during tests. Our proposed § 35.33(b) 

would adopt this requirement and add 

that it also applies to propeller safety 

systems. Also, our proposed § 35.33(b) 

clarifies the conditions under which 

some tests may be conducted without 

the automatic controls or safety systems. 

For example, the applicant may have to 

disable a primary system to test a 

backup system. 

CS–P 440 requires that applicants 

address potential safety issues that may 

occur if required testing does not 

adequately test a component during 

propeller certification. Our proposed 

§ 35.33(c) would adopt this requirement. 

Section 35.34 Inspections, 

Adjustments, and Repairs 

We propose a new § 35.34 which 

would revise and incorporate inspection 

requirements from § 35.45 and the 

adjustment and repairs requirements 

from § 35.47. 

We propose a new § 35.34(a) to 

harmonize with CS–P340 requirements 

for pre-test inspections. Our proposal 

moves the post-test inspection 

requirements of the existing § 35.45, 

Teardown inspection, and consolidates 

them here. Pre-test inspection 

establishes the condition of the test 

article prior to testing. This is 

particularly important for composite 

structures in which damage may be 

internal and not visible. If internal 

damage is present prior to the start of 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
18140 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

the test, then the post-test inspection 

may not be valid without knowledge of 

the pre-test condition of the test article. 

Our proposal also would relocate the 

existing requirements of § 35.47 to a 

new § 35.34(b), since the requirements 

in § 35.47 are related to testing. 

Section 35.35 Centrifugal Load Tests 

We propose revising § 35.35 and 

renaming it as ‘‘Centrifugal load tests’’

to reflect the revised requirements. 

Our proposal would define 

requirements for the entire propeller 

and include consideration of material 

degradation expected in service. 

Material degradation considerations 

apply to all types of construction, but 

would be specifically added to address 

composite materials, which may absorb 

moisture or show some evidence of 

delamination prior to retirement from 

service. 

We propose a § 35.35(a) that would 

require the hub, blade retention, and 

counterweights be tested to twice the 

centrifugal load for one hour. This test 

is designed to assure a suitable static 

strength margin above the maximum 

rated rotational speed. 

Our proposed § 35.35(b) would 

require the transition in a composite 

blade from the composite material to the 

metallic retention be tested to twice the 

centrifugal load for one hour. This 

requirement would also apply to other 

types of construction in which a blade 

to retention transition occurs. 

Our proposed § 35.35(c) would 

harmonize with CS–P 350 by requiring 

that lower energy debris for the entire 

propeller be evaluated at 159 percent of 

the maximum centrifugal load. The low 

energy debris would include spinners, 

de-icing equipment, blade erosion 

shields, and other assemblies used with 

or attached to the propeller. 

Section 35.36 Bird Impact 

We propose adding a new § 35.36 to 

part 35 to address bird impact with the 

propeller. Our proposed § 35.36 

incorporates the use of special 

conditions for propellers with 

composite blades and would extend the 

bird impact certification requirement to 

all propeller designs, except fixed-pitch 

wood propellers of conventional design. 

Section 35.36 would exclude 

conventional fixed-pitch wood 

propellers because of their satisfactory 

experience. The new requirement would 

apply to metallic blades but would 

allow compliance by experience from 

similar designs. 

Industry recognized the need for bird 

impact requirements when composite 

blades were introduced in the 1970s. 

The safety issues have been addressed 

by special tests and special conditions 

for composite blade certifications. These 

special conditions were unique for each 

propeller and effectively stated that the 

propeller must withstand a 4-pound 

bird impact without contributing to a 

major or hazardous propeller effect. The 

special tests and special conditions have 

been effective for over 50 million flight 

hours, and no accidents have been 

attributed to bird impact against 

composite propellers. The selection of a 

4-pound bird is based on the extensive 

service history of blades that have been 

designed using the 4-pound bird 

criteria. 

Section 35.37 Fatigue Limits and 

Evaluation 

We propose to rename § 35.37 from 

‘‘Fatigue limit tests’’ to ‘‘Fatigue limits 

and evaluation’’ and revise it to 

harmonize with CS–P 370, Fatigue 

Characteristics. The current requirement 

does not adequately address composite 

materials and is limited to hubs, blades, 

and primary load-carrying metal 

components of nonmetallic blades. Our 

proposed § 35.37 would expand the 

requirement to all materials and 

components (including controls system 

components, if applicable) whose 

failure would cause a hazardous 

propeller effect and also include 

environmental effects. It would retain 

the fatigue evaluation requirement in 

paragraph (b), but would require that 

the fatigue evaluation be conducted on 

the intended airplane in accordance 

with §§ 23.907 or 25.907 or on a typical 

airplane. Applicants may configure a 

typical airplane to develop design 

criteria for the propeller in those 

instances when the intended airplane 

installation is either unavailable or 

unknown at propeller type certification. 

Section 35.38 Lightning Strike 

We propose a new § 35.38, Lightning 

strike, to harmonize with CS–P 380, 

Lightning Strike. Part 35 currently has 

no lightning strike requirements. Our 

proposed § 35.38 requires that 

composite propellers withstand a 

lightning strike without contributing to 

a major or hazardous propeller effect. It 

also reflects current practices in the 

industry and the special tests and 

special conditions we issued for 

lightning strikes when composite blades 

were first introduced. 

Our new § 35.38 would exclude 

conventional fixed-pitch wood 

propellers because of their satisfactory 

experience. This new requirement 

would apply to metallic blades but 

allow compliance by experience from 

similar designs. 

Section 35.39 Endurance Test 

We propose to revise § 35.39 to 

harmonize with CS–P 390. We would 

remove the existing 10-hour endurance 

block test from this section because 

testing one propeller at the greatest 

pitch and diameter for 10 hours is not 

adequate for a family of propellers. All 

current fixed-pitch propellers are being 

tested in accordance with the current 

50-hour test requirement, which 

provides an adequate test. 

The proposed revision would delete 

the requirement to test a propeller of the 

greatest diameter for which certification 

is requested. We are introducing this 

change because testing of the greatest 

diameter is restrictive and does not 

necessarily result in an increase in 

airworthiness. 

Section 35.40 Functional Test 

We propose to redesignate the current 

§ 35.41 as § 35.40 to harmonize with 

CS–P 400, Functional Test. 

Section 35.41 Overspeed and 

Overtorque 

We propose a new overspeed and 

overtorque requirement to harmonize 

with CS–P 410(a). We will rename 

§ 35.41 ‘‘Overspeed and overtorque’’ to 

reflect the revised requirements. Our 

proposal would require that applicants 

verify the declared transient overspeed 

and overtorque limits of the propeller. 

Section 35.42 Components of the 

Propeller Control System 

We propose to combine the current 

§ 35.42(a) and (b) into a single paragraph 

and rename § 35.42 as ‘‘Components of 

the propeller control system’’ to reflect 

the revised requirements. We would 

expand the 1000-hour operation 

requirement to the initially declared 

inspection interval or to a minimum of 

1000 hours. 

Section 35.43 Propeller Hydraulic 

Components 

We propose to revise the current 

§ 35.43, Special tests, and rename it as 

‘‘Propeller hydraulic components’’ to 

reflect the revised requirements. Our 

revision would delete the duplication 

common between § 35.43 and § 21.16 

and would harmonize with CS–P 430. 

The Propeller Harmonization Working 

Group determined that it is in the best 

interest of the public to require special 

conditions be issued and made available 

to the public when testing is required 

for unconventional features of design, 

material, or construction. We are, 

therefore, proposing to remove the 

special tests requirement of § 35.43. 

Our proposed § 35.43 would add 

requirements for testing propeller 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18141 

components that contain hydraulic 

pressure. These tests have been 

previously required by special condition 

or special tests under the current 

§ 35.43. This proposal adopts the test 

procedures that are being conducted on 

applicable components. 

Section 35.45 Reserved 

We propose to revise § 35.45 by 

moving the teardown inspection 

requirements to § 35.34, as noted above, 

and to mark § 35.45 ‘‘reserved.’’

Section 35.47 Propeller Adjustments 

and Parts Replacements 

We propose to revise § 35.47 by 

moving the propeller adjustment and 

repair requirements to § 35.34, as noted 

above, and to mark § 35.47 ‘‘Reserved.’’

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the U.S. Code specifies the 

FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety. 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. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce, including 

minimum safety standards for aircraft 

engines. This proposed rule is within 

the scope of that authority because it 

updates the existing regulations for 

airplane propellers. 

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 are no 

current 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 reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these proposed 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 also requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, to be the basis of U.S. 

standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandate 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. 

The 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 proposal does not warrant a full 

evaluation, this order permits a 

statement to that effect. The basis for the 

minimal impact must 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 rule. The reasoning for that 

determination follows. 

To a great extent this proposed rule 

would require propeller manufacturers 

to certificate future production 

propellers for sale in the United States 

to the same European standards that 

these firms already meet. The European 

Aviation Safety Agency, the European 

equivalent to the FAA, became 

responsible for certification of aircraft, 

engines, parts and appliances on 

September 28, 2003 by Commission 

Regulation (EC) 1702/2003. Because the 

U.S. and European effort to have 

common certification propeller 

regulations was almost completed when 

EASA became operational, the proposed 

part 35 and the European propeller 

requirements CS–P are almost identical. 

CS–P is now an official rule of a foreign 

regulatory agency while this is a 

proposed rule. To export propellers to 

Europe, U.S. manufacturers now must 

meet the European requirements. Before 

Europe made these requirements, 

industry provided us with a cost 

estimate of $31 million over a 25-year 

analysis period for them to be in 

compliance with the FAA proposed 

propeller requirements which would 

have codified existing special tests and 

conditions. But as manufacturers are 

already in compliance with these now 

harmonized proposed requirements, 

there are no additional compliance 

costs. 

This proposed rule has only one 

regulation stricter than EASA’s CS–P. 

The FAA proposes to extend the current 

special condition 4-pound bird strike 

test for composite propeller blades. CS–

P requires newly certificated propellers 

to withstand a 4-pound bird strike for 

equivalent part 25 airplanes. However, 

CS–P requires newly certificated 

propellers to withstand a 2.8-pound bird 

strike for equivalent part 23 commuter 

airplanes and does not require a bird 

strike test for other equivalent part 23 

airplanes. U. S. propeller manufacturers 

provided us with their estimated costs 

to meet the proposed 4-pound 

requirement. Over a 25-year analysis 

period (based on the operational life of 

a propeller) we estimate the total cost 

for 635 future propellers to be $458,000 

or $213,000 in present value (7 percent 

discount rate). The FAA considers this 

cost to be minimal. 

The benefits from this higher birdstrike requirement are an expected 

continuity of over fifty million flight 

hours with no accidents attributed to 

bird impacts against composite 

propellers despite many bird strikes. 

Between 1990 and 2004, there have 

been over 150 bird strikes to part 23 

propellers (see the FAA National 

Wildlife Strike Database, Version 6.0, 

February 26, 2005; available online at 

http://wildlife.pr.erau.edu/public/ 

index1.html). 

We, therefore, have determined that 

this rulemaking action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, and is not ‘‘significant’’ as 

defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures. In addition, the FAA 

has determined that this rulemaking 

action: (1) Would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities; (2) would be 

in compliance with the Trade 

Agreements Act; and (3) would not 

impose an unfunded mandate on state, 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
18142 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1 _, United Technologies Corporation—Our 

Profile, http://www.utc.com/profile/profile/ 

index.htm, 08/26/2005. 

local, or tribal governments, or on the 

private sector. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

A. Introduction 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA) establishes ‘‘* * * as a principle 

of regulatory issuance that agencies 

shall endeavor, consistent with the 

objective of the rule and of applicable 

statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the business, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve that principle, 

the RFA requires agencies to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of 

small entities, including small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

and small governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a proposed or final 

rule would have a ‘‘significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities.’’ If the determination is that it 

will, the agency must prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis as 

described in the RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a proposed or final rule is not expected 

to have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 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 purpose of this Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) is to ensure 

that the agency has considered all 

reasonable regulatory alternatives that 

would minimize the proposal’s 

economic burdens for affected small 

entities, while achieving its safety 

objectives. 

Under Section 603 of the RFA, the 

analysis must address: 

• Description of reasons the agency is 

considering the action. 

• Statement of the legal basis and 

objectives for the proposal. 

• Description of the recordkeeping 

and other compliance requirements of 

the proposal. 

• All federal rules that may duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with the proposal. 

• Description and an estimated 

number of small entities to which the 

proposal would apply. 

• Analysis of small firms’ ability to 

afford the proposal. 

• Conduct a competitive analysis. 

• Estimation of the potential for 

business closures. 

• Describe the alternatives 

considered. 

• Conduct a disproportionality 

analysis. 

B. Reasons for This Proposal 

The FAA proposes to revise the 

airworthiness standards for the issuance 

of original and amended type 

certificates for airplane propellers. The 

existing propeller requirements do not 

adequately address the technological 

advances of the past 20 years. The 

proposed standards would address the 

current advances in technology and 

would harmonize the FAA requirements 

with the existing requirements of 

Certification Specifications for 

Propellers of the EASA. This proposal 

would establish nearly uniform 

standards for aircraft propellers certified 

by the United States under FAA 

standards and by European countries 

under EASA standards, thereby 

simplifying airworthiness approvals for 

import and export products. 

C. Statement of the Legal Basis and 

Objectives 

Under Title 49 of the U. S. Code, the 

FAA Administrator is required to 

consider the following matters, among 

others, as being in the public interest: 

Assigning, maintaining, and enhancing 

safety and security as the highest 

priorities in air commerce. (See 49 

U.S.C. 40101(d)(1).). Additionally, it is 

the FAA Administrator’s statutory duty 

to carry out his or her responsibilities 

‘‘in a way that best tends to reduce or 

eliminate the possibility or recurrence 

of accidents in air transportation.’’ (See 

49 U.S.C. 44701(c).) 

Accordingly, this proposal would 

amend Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations to update the propeller 

certification requirements to reflect 

technological changes in the last 10 to 

20 years, reduce the need for and use of 

special tests and conditions for 

propeller certification, and to harmonize 

U.S. propeller certification requirements 

with European propeller certification 

requirements. 

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping 

and Other Requirements 

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 are no 

current new information collection 

requirements associated with this 

proposed rule. 

E. Overlapping, Duplicative, or 

Conflicting Federal Rules 

The FAA is unaware that the proposal 

would overlap, duplicate, or conflict 

with existing Federal Rules. 

F. Estimated Number of Small Firms 

Potentially Impacted 

Under the RFA, the FAA must 

determine whether or not a proposal 

significantly affects a substantial 

number of small entities. This 

determination is typically based on 

small entity size and cost thresholds 

that vary depending on the affected 

industry. The Small Business 

Administration (SBA) uses the NAICS 

(North American Industry Classification 

System) 2002 to determine size 

standards for small businesses. There is 

no entry in the NAICS 2002 for 

propeller manufacturers. However, the 

NAICS 2002 does list under Sectors 31–

33, Manufacturing, Subsector 336, 

Transportation Equipment 

Manufacturing, which in turn lists the 

following numbers and number of 

employees as shown in the following 

table: 

NAICS 

2002 No. Description Number of employees 

336411 .. Aircraft Manufacturing.1,500 

336412 .. Aircraft Engine and 

Engine Parts 

Manufacturing.

1,000 

336413 .. Other Aircraft Part 

and Auxiliary 

Equipment Manufacturing.

1,000 

Propeller manufacturing could be 

included in #336412, Aircraft Engine 

and Aircraft Parts Manufacturing; or 

#336413, Other Aircraft Parts and 

Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing. 

Both these categories use 1,000 

employees to define a small business. 

Therefore, the FAA defines a small 

business in the variable pitch propeller 

manufacturing industry as a business 

with 1,000 or less employees. In 

accordance with SBA usage, this 

number applies to the ultimate 

ownership of the company. 

In 2004, the American airplane 

variable pitch propeller industry 

consisted of three firms. These firms 

were Hamilton Sundstrand, Hartzell, 

and McCauley. Hamilton Sundstrand is 

a subsidiary of United Technologies that 

employed approximately 210,000 

people and had annual revenues of 

approximately $37 billion in 2004.1


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18143 

2www.textron.com/about/company/index.jsp 

(Accessed 08/26/2005). 

3 _, Reference USA, Version 2003.1, http:// 

www.referenceusa.com/bd/ 

detail.asp?si=97350308854484

&abinumber=402250104&t..., 11/25/02. 

McCauley Propeller Systems is owned 

by Cessna, which, in turn, is owned by 

Textron, Inc. Textron employed some 

44,000 people and had annual revenues 

of some $10 billion in 2004.2 Hartzell 

Propeller, Inc. employed 295 employees 

in 2003 and had annual revenues 

between $20 and $50 million in 2002.3

Using the above criteria, Hartzell is a 

small business and Hamilton 

Sundstrand and McCauley are not small 

businesses. Because only one company 

is a small business, this proposal would 

not affect a substantial number of small 

entities. 

G. Cost and Affordability for Small 

Entities 

The 25 year present value estimate of 

the costs of the proposal is $213,000 or 

$18,000 annually. Assuming that this 

cost is distributed evenly across the 

three firms in the American propeller 

industry, this results in a cost of $6,000 

per company per year. 

Hartzell Propeller does not release its 

annual financial statements. The 

reference source ‘‘Reference, USA, 

2003,’’ uses a model to estimate the 

annual revenues of privately held firms 

that do not release their financial 

statements. Therefore, this source 

provides a range estimate of firms such 

as Hartzell. The annual revenue of 

Hartzell Propellers was estimated to be 

between $20 and $50 million annually, 

or an average of $37.5 million, by 

‘‘Reference USA, 2003.’’

A comparison of the annual costs of 

the proposal per firm to the annual 

revenues of a firm provides a rough 

estimate of the burden the rule causes 

for a firm. Applying the above technique 

to the small propeller entity yields the 

following results: 

Company Annual cost 

of rule 

Annual 

revenue 

Percent of 

annual 

revenue 

Hartzell ......................................................................................................................................... $6,000 $37,500,000 0.016 

Given the estimated cost and revenue, 

the FAA believes that the cost would 

have only a minor impact on the small 

firm. 

H. Competitive Analysis 

As the cost information is at the 

company level and the propeller firms 

do not all produce the same kind of 

propeller, the FAA does not have 

sufficient information to analyze the 

competitive impact of this proposal. 

I. Disproportionality Analysis 

Relative to larger propeller 

manufacturers, smaller propeller 

manufacturers are more likely to be 

disproportionately impacted by this 

rulemaking because the larger 

manufacturers have relatively higher 

fixed costs than the smaller 

manufacturers. These fixed costs are not 

impacted by the costs that would be 

imposed by this proposal. The larger 

propeller manufacturers are expected to 

incur costs which are a relatively 

smaller percentage of their annual 

revenues than those of smaller propeller 

manufacturers. 

J. Business Closure Analysis 

The one small business entity has a 

relatively low compliance cost per 

annual revenue ratio. We believe that 

this minor compliance cost would not 

cause firms to face a business closure. 

The FAA does not have sufficient 

information to provide a more refined 

estimate of a potential business closure. 

K. Analysis of Alternatives 

The agency considered three 

alternatives to the proposal. These were: 

1. Exclude small entities. 

2. Extend compliance deadline for 

small entities. 

3. Establish lesser technical 

requirements for small entities. 

The FAA concludes that the option to 

exclude small entities from all the 

requirements of the proposal is not 

justified. If small entities were excluded 

the intended safety improvements 

would be forfeited. 

The FAA also considered options that 

would lengthen the compliance period 

for small operators. The FAA believes 

that the requirement, as proposed, 

would place a modest burden on small 

entities with respect to time constraints. 

Small entities would have sufficient 

time from the effective date of the rule 

to complete implementation work. 

Further time extensions would only 

provide modest cost savings and leave 

the system safety at risk. 

The FAA considered establishing 

lesser technical requirements for small 

entities. However, the FAA believes that 

this would result in a lower level of 

safety than would the implementation 

of the proposal. The FAA believes that 

the greatest safety benefits would come 

from a common certification rule for all 

manufacturers. 

The FAA concludes that the current 

proposal is the preferred alternative 

because the current proposal provides 

for a common certification system for all 

propeller manufacturers. 

In conclusion, as only one small 

entity would be affected there are not a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Therefore, the FAA certifies that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The FAA 

solicits comments regarding this 

determination. 

Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits Federal 

agencies from establishing any 

standards or engaging in related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this proposed rule 

and determined that it will accept 

European standards as the basis for U.S. 

regulations. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandate 

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. The 

FAA currently uses an inflationadjusted value of $128.1 million in lieu 

of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate. The requirements of 

Title II do not apply. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
18144 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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. Therefore, we 

determined that this proposed 

rulemaking 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 that this 

proposed rule 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. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 23, 25, 

33 and 35 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend parts 23, 25, 33, and 

35 of Title 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 23—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, 

ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER 

CATEGORY AIRPLANES 

1. The authority citation for part 23 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702, 44704. 

2. Revise § 23.905(d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 23.905 Propellers. 

* * * * * 

(d) The propeller blade pitch control 

system must meet the requirements of 

§§ 35.21, 35.23, 35.42 and 35.43 of this 

chapter. 

* * * * * 

3. Revise § 23.907 to read as follows: 

§ 23.907 Propeller vibration and fatigue. 

Sections 23.907(a), (b), and (c) do not 

apply to fixed-pitch wood propellers of 

conventional design. 

(a) The applicant must determine the 

magnitude of the propeller vibration 

stresses or loads, including any stress 

peaks and resonant conditions, 

throughout the operational envelope of 

the airplane by either: 

(1) Measurement of stresses or loads 

through direct testing or analysis based 

on direct testing of the propeller on the 

airplane and engine installation for 

which approval is sought; or 

(2) Comparison of the propeller to 

similar propellers installed on similar 

airplane installations for which these 

measurements have been made. 

(b) The applicant must demonstrate 

by tests, analysis based on tests, or 

previous experience on similar designs 

that the propeller does not experience 

harmful effects of flutter throughout the 

operational envelope of the airplane. 

(c) The applicant must perform an 

evaluation of the propeller to show that 

failure due to fatigue will be avoided 

throughout the operational life of the 

propeller using the fatigue and 

structural data obtained in accordance 

with part 35 and the vibration data 

obtained from compliance with 

paragraph (a) of this section. For the 

purpose of this paragraph, the propeller 

includes the hub, blades, blade 

retention component and any other 

propeller component whose failure due 

to fatigue could be catastrophic to the 

airplane. This evaluation must include: 

(1) The intended loading spectra 

including all reasonably foreseeable 

propeller vibration and cyclic load 

patterns, identified emergency 

conditions, allowable overspeeds and 

overtorques, and the effects of 

temperatures and humidity expected in 

service. 

(2) The effects of airplane and 

propeller operating and airworthiness 

limitations. 

PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT 

CATEGORY AIRPLANES 

4. The authority citation for part 25 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702, 44704. 

5. Revise § 25.901(b)(1)(i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 25.901 Installation. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) The installation instructions 

provided under §§ 33.5 and 35.3 of this 

chapter; and 

* * * * * 

6. Revise § 25.905(c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 25.905 Propellers. 

* * * * * 

(c) The propeller blade pitch control 

system must meet the requirements of 

§§ 35.21, 35.23, 35.42 and 35.43 of this 

chapter. 

* * * * * 

7. Revise § 25.907 to read as follows: 

§ 25.907 Propeller vibration. 

Section 25.907 does not apply to 

fixed-pitch wood propellers of 

conventional design. 

(a) The applicant must determine the 

magnitude of the propeller vibration 

stresses or loads, including any stress 

peaks and resonant conditions, 

throughout the operational envelope of 

the airplane by either: 

(1) Measurement of stresses or loads 

through direct testing or analysis based 

on direct testing of the propeller on the 

airplane and engine installation for 

which approval is sought; or 

(2) Comparison of the propeller to 

similar propellers installed on similar 

airplane installations for which these 

measurements have been made. 

(b) The applicant must demonstrate 

by tests, analysis based on tests, or 

previous experience on similar designs 

that the propeller does not experience 

harmful effects of flutter throughout the 

operational envelope of the airplane. 

(c) The applicant must perform an 

evaluation of the propeller to show that 

failure due to fatigue will be avoided 

throughout the operational life of the 

propeller using the fatigue and 

structural data obtained in accordance 

with part 35 and the vibration data 

obtained from compliance with 

paragraph (a) of this section. For the 

purpose of this paragraph, the propeller 

includes the hub, blades, blade 

retention component and any other 

propeller component whose failure due 

to fatigue could be catastrophic to the 

airplane. This evaluation must include: 

(1) The intended loading spectra 

including all reasonably foreseeable 

propeller vibration and cyclic load 

patterns, identified emergency 

conditions, allowable overspeeds and 

overtorques, and the effects of 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18145 

temperatures and humidity expected in 

service. 

(2) The effects of airplane and 

propeller operating and airworthiness 

limitations. 

PART 33—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES 

8. The authority citation for part 33 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702, 44704. 

9. Revise § 33.19(b) to read as follows: 

§ 33.19 Durability. 

* * * * * 

(b) Each component of the propeller 

blade pitch control system which is a 

part of the engine type design must meet 

the requirements of §§ 35.21, 35.23, 

35.42 and 35.43 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

PART 35—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: PROPELLERS 

10. The authority citation for part 35 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702, 44704. 

Subpart A—General 

11. In § 35.1, add paragraphs (c) and 

(d) to read as follows: 

§ 35.1 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(c) An applicant is eligible for a 

propeller type certificate and changes to 

those certificates after demonstrating 

compliance with subparts A, B and C of 

this part. However, the propeller may 

not be installed on an airplane unless 

the applicant has shown compliance 

with either § 23.907 or § 25.907, as 

applicable, or compliance is not 

required for installation on that 

airplane. 

(d) For the purposes of this part, the 

propeller consists of those components 

listed in the type design, and the 

propeller system consists of the 

propeller plus all the components 

necessary for its functioning, but not 

necessarily included in the propeller 

type design. 

12. Add § 35.2 to read as follows: 

§ 35.2 Propeller configuration and 

identification. 

(a) The applicant must provide a list 

of all the components, including 

references to the relevant drawings and 

software design data, that define the 

type design of the propeller to be 

approved under § 21.31. 

(b) The propeller identification must 

comply with §§ 45.11 and 45.14. 

13. Revise § 35.3 to read as follows: 

§ 35.3 Instructions for propeller 

installation and operation. 

The applicant must provide 

instructions that are approved by the 

Administrator. Those approved 

instructions must contain: 

(a) Instructions for installing the 

propeller, which: 

(1) Include a description of the 

operational modes of the propeller 

control system and functional interface 

of the control system with the airplane 

and engine systems; 

(2) Specify the physical and 

functional interfaces with the airplane, 

airplane equipment and engine; 

(3) Define the limiting conditions on 

the interfaces from paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section; 

(4) List the limitations established 

under § 35.5; 

(5) Define the hydraulic fluids 

approved for use with the propeller, 

including grade and specification, 

related operating pressure, and filtration 

levels; and 

(6) State the assumptions made to 

comply with the requirements of this 

part. 

(b) Instructions for operating the 

propeller which must specify all 

procedures necessary for operating the 

propeller within the limitations of the 

propeller type design. 

14. Revise § 35.5 to read as follows: 

§ 35.5 Propeller ratings and operating 

limitations. 

(a) Propeller ratings and operating 

limitations must: 

(1) Be established by the applicant 

and approved by the Administrator. 

(2) Be included directly or by 

reference in the propeller type 

certificate data sheet, as specified in 

§ 21.41 of this chapter. 

(3) Be based on the operating 

conditions demonstrated during the 

tests required by this part as well as any 

other information the Administrator 

requires as necessary for the safe 

operation of the propeller. 

(b) Propeller ratings and operating 

limitations must be established for the 

following, as applicable: 

(1) Power and rotational speed for: 

(i) Takeoff. 

(ii) Maximum continuous. 

(iii) If requested by the applicant, 

other ratings may also be established. 

(2) Overspeed and overtorque limits. 

15. Add § 35.7 to read as follows: 

§ 35.7 Features and characteristics. 

(a) The propeller must not have 

features or characteristics, revealed by 

any test or analysis or known to the 

applicant, that make it unsafe for the 

uses for which certification is requested. 

(b) If a failure occurs during a 

certification test, the applicant must 

determine the cause and assess the 

effect on the airworthiness of the 

propeller. The applicant must make 

changes to the design and conduct 

additional tests that the Administrator 

finds necessary to establish the 

airworthiness of the propeller. 

Subpart B—Design and Construction 

§ 35.11 [Removed] 

16. Remove and reserve § 35.11. 

§ 35.13 [Removed] 

17. Remove and reserve § 35.13. 

18. Revise § 35.15 to read as follows: 

§ 35.15 Safety analysis. 

(a)(1) The applicant must analyze the 

propeller 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) The propeller system in a typical 

installation. When the analysis depends 

on representative components, assumed 

interfaces, or assumed installed 

conditions, the assumptions must be 

stated in the analysis. 

(ii) Consequential secondary failures 

and dormant failures. 

(iii) Multiple failures referred to in 

paragraph (d) of this section, or that 

result in the hazardous propeller effects 

defined in paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section. 

(2) The applicant must summarize 

those failures that could result in major 

propeller effects or hazardous propeller 

effects defined in paragraph (g) of this 

section, and estimate the probability of 

occurrence of those effects. 

(3) The applicant must show that 

hazardous propeller effects are not 

predicted to occur at a rate in excess of 

that defined as extremely remote 

(probability of 10¥7 or less per propeller 

flight hour). Since the estimated 

probability for individual failures may 

be insufficiently precise to enable the 

applicant to assess the total rate for 

hazardous propeller effects, compliance 

may be shown by demonstrating that the 

probability of a hazardous propeller 

effect arising from an individual failure 

can be predicted to be not greater than 

10¥8 per propeller flight hour. In 

dealing with probabilities of this low 

order of magnitude, absolute proof is 

not possible and reliance must be 

placed on engineering judgment and 

previous experience combined with 

sound design and test philosophies. 

(4) It must be shown that major 

propeller effects are not predicted to 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
18146 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

occur at a rate in excess of that defined 

as remote (probability of 10¥5 or less 

per propeller flight hour). 

(b) If significant doubt exists as to the 

effects of failures or likely combination 

of failures, the Administrator may 

require assumptions used in the 

analysis to be verified by test. 

(c) The primary failures of certain 

single elements (for example, blades) 

cannot be sensibly estimated in 

numerical terms. If the failure of such 

elements is likely to result in hazardous 

propeller effects, then compliance may 

be shown by reliance on the prescribed 

integrity requirements of this part. 

These instances must be stated in the 

safety analysis. 

(d) If reliance is placed on a safety 

system to prevent a failure progressing 

to hazardous propeller effects, the 

possibility of a safety system failure in 

combination with a basic propeller 

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 the safety system are outside 

the control of the propeller 

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 propeller installation and operation 

instructions required under § 35.3. 

(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 

propeller effects, these maintenance 

actions and intervals must be published 

in the instructions for continued 

airworthiness required under § 35.4 of 

this part. Additionally, if errors in 

maintenance of the propeller system 

could lead to hazardous propeller 

effects, the appropriate procedures must 

be included in the relevant propeller 

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. 

Such instrumentation must be 

published in the appropriate 

documentation. 

(4) A fatigue assessment. 

(f) If applicable, the safety analysis 

must include, but not be limited to, 

assessment of indicating equipment, 

manual and automatic controls, 

governors and propeller control 

systems, synchrophasers, synchronizers, 

and propeller thrust reversal systems. 

(g) Unless otherwise approved by the 

Administrator and stated in the safety 

analysis, the following failure 

definitions apply to compliance with 

part 35. 

(1) The following are regarded as 

hazardous propeller effects: 

(i) A significant overspeed of the 

propeller. 

(ii) The development of excessive 

drag. 

(iii) A significant thrust in the 

opposite direction to that commanded 

by the pilot. 

(iv) The release of the propeller or any 

major portion of the propeller. 

(v) A failure that results in excessive 

unbalance. 

(vi) The unintended movement of the 

propeller blades below the established 

minimum in-flight low-pitch position. 

(2) The following are regarded as 

major propeller effects for variable pitch 

propellers: 

(i) An inability to feather the propeller 

for feathering propellers. 

(ii) An inability to change propeller 

pitch when commanded. 

(iii) A significant uncommanded 

change in pitch. 

(iv) A significant uncontrollable 

torque or speed fluctuation. 

19. Revise § 35.17 to read as follows: 

§ 35.17 Materials and manufacturing 

methods. 

(a) The suitability and durability of 

materials used in the propeller must: 

(1) Be established on the basis of 

experience, tests, or both. 

(2) Account for environmental 

conditions expected in service. 

(b) All materials and manufacturing 

methods must conform to specifications 

acceptable to the Administrator. 

(c) The design values of properties of 

materials must be suitably related to the 

most adverse properties stated in the 

material specification. 

20. Revise § 35.21 to read as follows: 

§ 35.21 Variable and reversible pitch 

propellers. 

(a) No single failure or malfunction in 

the propeller system will result in 

unintended travel of the propeller 

blades to a position below the in-flight 

low-pitch position. The extent of any 

intended travel below the in-flight lowpitch position must be documented by 

the applicant in the appropriate 

manuals. Failure of structural elements 

need not be considered if the occurrence 

of such a failure is shown to be 

extremely remote under § 35.15(c). 

(b) For propellers incorporating a 

method to select blade pitch below the 

in-flight low pitch position, provisions 

must be made to sense and indicate to 

the flight crew that the propeller blades 

are below that position by an amount 

defined in the installation manual. The 

method for sensing and indicating the 

propeller blade must be such that its 

failure does not affect the control of the 

propeller. 

21. Add § 35.22 to read as follows: 

§ 35.22 Feathering propellers. 

(a) Feathering propellers must be 

designed to feather from all conditions 

in flight, taking into account expected 

wear and leakage. Feathering and 

unfeathering limitations must be 

documented in the appropriate 

manuals. 

(b) Propeller pitch control systems 

that use engine oil to feather must 

incorporate a method to allow the 

propeller to feather if the engine oil 

system fails. 

(c) Feathering propellers must be 

designed to be capable of unfeathering 

at the minimum declared outside air 

temperature after stabilization to a 

steady-state temperature. 

22. Revise § 35.23 to read as follows: 

§ 35.23 Propeller control system. 

The requirements of this section 

apply to any system or component that 

controls, limits or monitors propeller 

functions. 

(a) The propeller control system must 

be designed, constructed and validated 

to show that: 

(1) The propeller control system, 

operating in normal and alternative 

operating modes and in transition 

between operating modes, performs the 

functions defined by the applicant 

throughout the declared operating 

conditions and flight envelope. 

(2) The propeller control system 

functionality is not adversely affected 

by the declared environmental 

conditions, including temperature, 

electromagnetic interference (EMI), high 

intensity radiated fields (HIRF) and 

lightning. The environmental limits to 

which the system has been satisfactorily 

validated must be documented in the 

appropriate propeller manuals. 

(3) A method is provided to indicate 

that an operating mode change has 

occurred if flight crew action is 

required. In such an event, operating 

instructions must be provided in the 

appropriate manuals. 

(b) The propeller control system must 

be designed and constructed so that, in 

addition to compliance with § 35.15: 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18147 

(1) No single failure or malfunction of 

electrical or electronic components in 

the control system results in a 

hazardous propeller effect. 

(2) Failures or malfunctions directly 

affecting the propeller control system in 

a typical airplane, such as structural 

failures of attachments to the control, 

fire, or overheat, do not lead to a 

hazardous propeller effect. 

(3) The loss of normal propeller pitch 

control does not cause a hazardous 

propeller effect under the intended 

operating conditions. 

(4) The failure or corruption of data or 

signals shared across propellers does 

not cause a hazardous propeller effect. 

(c) Electronic propeller control system 

imbedded software must be designed 

and implemented by a method approved 

by the Administrator that is consistent 

with the criticality of the performed 

functions and that minimizes the 

existence of software errors. 

(d) The propeller control system must 

be designed and constructed so that the 

failure or corruption of airplanesupplied data does not result in 

hazardous propeller effects. 

(e) The propeller control system must 

be designed and constructed so that the 

loss, interruption or abnormal 

characteristic of airplane-supplied 

electrical power does not result in 

hazardous propeller effects. The power 

quality requirements must be described 

in the appropriate manuals. 

23. Add § 35.24 to read as follows: 

§ 35.24 Strength. 

The maximum stresses developed in 

the propeller must not exceed values 

acceptable to the Administrator 

considering the particular form of 

construction and the most severe 

operating conditions. Due consideration 

must be given to the effects of any 

residual stresses. 

Subpart C—Type Substantiation 

§ 35.31 [Removed] 

24. Remove and reserve § 35.31. 

25. Revise § 35.33 to read as follows: 

§ 35.33 General. 

(a) Each applicant must furnish test 

article(s) and suitable testing facilities, 

including equipment and competent 

personnel, and conduct the required 

tests in accordance with part 21. 

(b) All automatic controls and safety 

systems must be in operation unless it 

is accepted by the Administrator as 

impossible or not required because of 

the nature of the test. If needed for 

substantiation, the applicant may test a 

different propeller configuration if this 

does not constitute a less severe test. 

(c) Any systems or components that 

cannot be adequately substantiated by 

the applicant to the requirements of this 

part are required to undergo additional 

tests or analysis to demonstrate that the 

systems or components are able to 

perform their intended functions in all 

declared environmental and operating 

conditions. 

26. Revise § 35.34 to read as follows: 

§ 35.34 Inspections, adjustments and 

repairs. 

(a) Before and after conducting the 

tests prescribed in this part, the test 

article must be subjected to an 

inspection, and a record must be made 

of all the relevant parameters, 

calibrations and settings. 

(b) During all tests, only servicing and 

minor repairs are permitted. If major 

repairs or part replacement is required, 

the Administrator must approve the 

repair or part replacement prior to 

implementation and may require 

additional testing. Any unscheduled 

repair or action on the test article must 

be recorded and reported. 

27. Revise § 35.35 to read as follows: 

§ 35.35 Centrifugal load tests. 

The applicant must demonstrate that 

a propeller complies with paragraphs 

(a), (b) and (c) of this section without 

evidence of failure, malfunction, or 

permanent deformation that would 

result in a major or hazardous propeller 

effect. When the propeller could be 

sensitive to environmental degradation 

in service, this must be considered. This 

section does not apply to fixed-pitch 

wood or fixed-pitch metal propellers of 

conventional design. 

(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 rated rotational speed. 

(b) 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 § 35.35(a) or in 

a separate component test. 

(c) Components used with or attached 

to the propeller (for example, spinners, 

de-icing equipment, and blade erosion 

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 at the maximum rated 

rotational speed. This must be 

performed by either: 

(1) Testing at the required load for a 

period of 30 minutes; or 

(2) Analysis based on test. 

28. Add § 35.36 to read as follows: 

§ 35.36 Bird impact. 

The applicant must demonstrate, by 

tests or analysis based on tests or 

experience on similar designs, that the 

propeller can withstand the impact of a 

4-pound bird at the critical location(s) 

and critical flight condition(s) of a 

typical installation without causing a 

major or hazardous propeller effect. 

This section does not apply to fixedpitch wood propellers of conventional 

design. 

29. Revise § 35.37 to read as follows: 

§ 35.37 Fatigue limits and evaluation. 

This section does not apply to fixedpitch wood propellers of conventional 

design. 

(a) Fatigue limits must be established 

by tests, or analysis based on tests, for 

propeller: 

(1) Hubs; 

(2) Blades; 

(3) Blade retention components; 

(4) Components which are affected by 

fatigue loads and which are shown 

under § 35.15 to have a fatigue failure 

mode leading to hazardous propeller 

effects. 

(b) The fatigue limits must take into 

account: 

(1) All known and reasonably 

foreseeable vibration and cyclic load 

patterns that are expected in service; 

and 

(2) Expected service deterioration, 

variations in material properties, 

manufacturing variations, and 

environmental effects. 

(c) 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 airplane by 

complying with § 23.907 or § 25.907, as 

applicable; or 

(2) A typical airplane. 

30. Add § 35.38 to read as follows: 

§ 35.38 Lightning strike. 

The applicant must demonstrate, by 

tests, analysis based on tests, or 

experience on similar designs, that the 

propeller can withstand a lightning 

strike without causing a major or 

hazardous propeller effect. The limit to 

which the propeller has been qualified 

must be documented in the appropriate 

manuals. This section does not apply to 

fixed-pitch wood propellers of 

conventional design. 

31. Revise § 35.39 to read as follows: 

§ 35.39 Endurance test. 

Endurance tests on the propeller 

system must be made on a 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
18148 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

representative engine in accordance 

with paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, 

as applicable, without evidence of 

failure or malfunction. 

(a) Fixed-pitch and ground adjustablepitch propellers must be subjected to 

one of the following tests: 

(1) A 50-hour flight test in level flight 

or in climb. The propeller must be 

operated at takeoff power and rated 

rotational speed during at least five 

hours of this flight test, and at not less 

than 90 percent of the rated rotational 

speed for the remainder of the 50 hours. 

(2) A 50-hour ground test at takeoff 

power and rated rotational speed. 

(b) Variable-pitch propellers must be 

subjected to one of the following tests: 

(1) A 110-hour endurance test that 

must include the following conditions: 

(i) Five hours at takeoff power and 

rotational speed and thirty 10-minute 

cycles composed of: 

(A) Acceleration from idle, 

(B) Five minutes at takeoff power and 

rotational speed, 

(C) Deceleration, and 

(D) Five minutes at idle. 

(ii) Fifty hours at maximum 

continuous power and rotational speed, 

(iii) Fifty hours, consisting of ten 5- 

hour cycles composed of: 

(A) Five accelerations and 

decelerations between idle, takeoff 

power and rotational speed; 

(B) Four and one-half hours at 

approximately even incremental 

conditions from idle up to, but not 

including, maximum continuous power 

and rotational speed; and 

(C) Thirty minutes at idle. 

(2) The operation of the propeller 

throughout the engine endurance tests 

prescribed in part 33 of this chapter. 

(c) An analysis based on tests of 

propellers of similar design may be used 

in place of the tests of § 35.39(a) and (b). 

32. Add § 35.40 to read as follows: 

§ 35.40 Functional test. 

The variable-pitch propeller system 

must be subjected to the applicable 

functional tests of this section. The 

same propeller system used in the 

endurance test (§ 35.39) must be used in 

the functional tests and must be driven 

by a representative engine on a test 

stand or on an airplane. The propeller 

must complete these tests without 

evidence of failure or malfunction. This 

test may be combined with the 

endurance test for accumulation of 

cycles. 

(a) Manually-controllable propellers. 

Five hundred representative flight 

cycles must be made across the range of 

pitch and rotational speed. 

(b) Governing propellers. Fifteen 

hundred complete cycles must be made 

across the range of pitch and rotational 

speed. 

(c) Feathering propellers. Fifty cycles 

of feather and unfeather operation must 

be made. 

(d) Reversible-pitch propellers. Two 

hundred complete cycles of control 

must be made from lowest normal pitch 

to maximum reverse pitch. During each 

cycle, the propeller must be run for 30 

seconds at the maximum power and 

rotational speed selected by the 

applicant for maximum reverse pitch. 

(e) An analysis based on tests of 

propellers of similar design may be used 

in place of the tests of § 35.40. 

33. Revise §§ 35.41, 35.42, and 35.43 

to read as follows: 

§ 35.41 Overspeed and overtorque. 

(a) When the applicant seeks approval 

of a transient maximum propeller 

overspeed, the applicant must 

demonstrate that the propeller is 

capable of further operation without 

maintenance action at the maximum 

propeller overspeed condition. This 

may be accomplished by: 

(1) Performance of 20 runs, each of 30 

seconds duration, at the maximum 

propeller overspeed condition; or 

(2) Analysis based on test or service 

experience. 

(b) When the applicant seeks approval 

of a transient maximum propeller 

overtorque, the applicant must 

demonstrate that the propeller is 

capable of further operation without 

maintenance action at the maximum 

propeller overtorque condition. This 

may be accomplished by: 

(1) Performance of 20 runs, each of 30 

seconds duration, at the maximum 

propeller overtorque condition; or 

(2) Analysis based on test or service 

experience. 

§ 35.42 Components of the propeller 

control system. 

The applicant must demonstrate by 

tests, analysis based on tests, or service 

experience on similar components, that 

each propeller blade pitch control 

system component, including governors, 

pitch change assemblies, pitch locks, 

mechanical stops, and feathering system 

components, can withstand cyclic 

operation that simulates the normal load 

and pitch change travel to which the 

component would be subjected during 

the initially declared overhaul period or 

during a minimum of 1000 hours of 

typical operation in service. 

§ 35.43 Propeller hydraulic components. 

Applicants must show that propeller 

components that contain hydraulic 

pressure and whose structural failure or 

leakage from a structural failure could 

cause a hazardous propeller effect 

demonstrate structural integrity by: 

(a) A proof pressure test to 1.5 times 

the maximum operating pressure for one 

minute without permanent deformation 

or leakage that would prevent 

performance of the intended function. 

(b) A burst pressure test to 2.0 times 

the maximum operating pressure for one 

minute without failure. Leakage is 

permitted and seals may be excluded 

from the test. 

§ 35.45 [Removed] 

34. Remove and reserve § 35.45. 

§ 35.47 [Removed] 

35. Remove and reserve § 35.47. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 26, 

2007. 

John J. Hickey, 

Director, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–6193 Filed 4–10–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 33 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27311; Notice No. 

07–03] 

RIN 2120–AI94 

Airworthiness Standards; Engine 

Control System Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) is proposing to 

revise type certification standards for 

aircraft engine control systems. These 

proposed changes reflect current 

practices and harmonize FAA standards 

with those recently adopted by the 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA). These proposed changes would 

establish uniform standards for all 

engine control systems for aircraft 

engines certificated by both U.S. and 

European countries and would simplify 

airworthiness approvals for import and 

export. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before July 10, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number [FAA–

2007–27311] using any of the following 

methods: 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

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

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS