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

74749 

Vol. 76, No. 231 

Thursday, December 1, 2011 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

13 CFR Parts 121 and 125 

RIN 3245–AG22 

Small Business Subcontracting 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: SBA is reopening the 

comment period for the proposed rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 5, 2011 at 76 FR 61626. In that 

rule SBA proposed to amend its 

regulations to implement provisions of 

the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 

(Jobs Act) pertaining to small business 

subcontracting. SBA proposed to amend 

its program regulations to provide for a 

‘‘covered contract’’ (a contract for which 

a small business subcontracting plan is 

required, currently valued above $1.5 

million for construction and $650,000 

for all other contracts), a prime 

contractor must notify the contracting 

officer in writing whenever the prime 

contractor does not utilize a 

subcontractor used in preparing its bid 

or proposal during contract 

performance. SBA also proposed to 

amend its regulations to require a prime 

contractor to notify a contracting officer 

in writing whenever the prime 

contractor reduces payments to a 

subcontractor or when payments to a 

subcontractor are 90 days or more past 

due. In addition, SBA proposed to 

clarify that the contracting officer is 

responsible for monitoring and 

evaluating small business 

subcontracting plan performance. SBA 

also proposed to clarify which 

subcontracts must be included in 

subcontracting data reporting, which 

subcontracts should be excluded, and 

the way subcontracting data is reported. 

SBA also proposed to make other 

changes to update its subcontracting 

regulations, including changing 

subcontracting plan thresholds and 

referencing the electronic 

subcontracting reporting system (eSRS). 

Some of the SBA’s proposed changes 

would require the contracting officer to 

review subcontracting plan reports 

within 60 days of the report ending 

date. 

Finally, SBA also proposed to address 

how subcontracting plan requirements 

and credit towards subcontracting goals 

can be implemented in connection with 

Multi-agency, Federal Supply Schedule, 

Multiple Award Schedule and 

Government-wide Acquisition 

indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, 

(IDIQ) contracts. 

SBA is reopening the comment period 

in response to the significant level of 

interest generated by the proposed rule 

among small businesses. Given the 

scope of the proposed rule and the 

nature of the issues raised by the 

comments received to date, SBA 

believes that affected businesses need 

more time to review the proposal and 

prepare their comments. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published on October 5, 

2011 (76 FR 61626) is extended through 

January 6, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN: 3245–AG22, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail, for paper, disk, or CD/ROM 

submissions: Dean Koppel, U.S. Small 

Business Administration, Office of 

Government Contracting, 409 Third 

Street SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 

20416. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Dean 

Koppel, U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Office of Government 

Contracting, 409 Third Street SW., 8th 

Floor Washington, DC 20416. 

SBA will post all comments on 

www.regulations.gov. If you wish to 

submit confidential business 

information (CBI) as defined in the User 

Notice at http://www.regulations.gov, 

please submit the information to Dean 

Koppel, U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Office of Government 

Contracting, 409 Third Street SW., 8th 

Floor, Washington, DC 20416, or send 

an email to Dean.Koppel@sba.gov. 

Highlight the information that you 

consider to be CBI and explain why you 

believe SBA should hold this 

information as confidential. SBA will 

review the information and make the 

final determination on whether it will 

publish the information or not. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dean Koppel, Office of Government 

Contracting, 409 Third Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20416; (202) 205–9751; 

Dean.Koppel@sba.gov. 

Dated: November 14, 2011. 

Joseph G. Jordan, 

Associate Administrator, Government 

Contracting and Business Development. 

[FR Doc. 2011–30927 Filed 11–30–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 35 

[Docket No.: FAA–2010–0940; Notice No. 

11–06] 

RIN 2120–AJ88 

Critical Parts for Airplane Propellers 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) proposes to 

amend the airworthiness standards for 

airplane propellers. This action would 

define what a propeller critical part is, 

require the identification of propeller 

critical parts by the manufacturer, and 

establish engineering, manufacture, and 

maintenance processes for those parts. 

The intended effect of this proposal is 

to ensure the continued airworthiness of 

propeller critical parts by requiring a 

system of processes to identify and 

manage these parts throughout their 

service life. Adopting this proposal 

would eliminate regulatory differences 

between part 35 and European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) propeller critical 

parts requirements, thereby simplifying 

airworthiness approvals for exports. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

January 30, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2010–0940 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
74750 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at (202) 493–2251. 

Privacy: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information the 

commenter provides. Using the search 

function of the docket web site, anyone 

can find and read the electronic form of 

all comments received into any FAA 

dockets, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement can be 

found in the Federal Register published 

on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478), 

as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Jay Turnberg, Engine and 

Propeller Directorate Standards Staff, 

ANE–111, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, 

Massachusetts 01803–5299; telephone 

(781) 238–7116; facsimile (781) 238– 

7199, email: jay.turnberg@faa.gov. For 

legal questions concerning this action, 

contact Vincent Bennett, FAA Office of 

Regional Council, ANE–7, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, 

Massachusetts 01803–5299; telephone 

(781) 238–7044; facsimile (781) 238– 

7055, email: vincent.bennett@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, section 

106, describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations promoting safe 

flight of civil aircraft commerce by 

prescribing regulations for practices, 

methods, and procedures the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce, including minimum 

safety standards for airplane propellers. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

that authority because it updates the 

existing regulations for airplane 

propellers. 

Overview of Proposed Rule 

Part 35 does not specifically define 

the term propeller critical part. 

Consequently, there are no requirements 

for design, manufacture, maintenance, 

or management of propeller critical 

parts. This rule would define and 

require the identification of propeller 

critical parts, and establish 

requirements to ensure the integrity of 

those parts. 

Statement of the Problem 

Propeller critical parts are not 

adequately addressed by the current 

Federal Aviation Regulations. Presently, 

the FAA does not— 

➣ Have a specific definition for a 

propeller critical part, or— 

➣ Require type certificate holders to 

identify propeller critical parts. 

Consequently, propeller 

manufacturers are not required to 

provide information concerning 

propeller critical part design, 

manufacture, or maintenance. 

Background 

On December 20, 2006, the FAA 

tasked the Aviation Rulemaking 

Advisory Committee (ARAC) to develop 

recommendations that would address 

the integrity of propeller critical parts, 

as well as be in harmony with similar 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) regulations. This proposal 

addresses those recommendations, 

which can be found in the docket of this 

rulemaking. 

Discussion of the Proposal 

Primary failure of certain single 

propeller elements (for example, blades) 

can result in a hazardous propeller 

effect. Part 35 does not specifically 

identify these elements as propeller 

critical parts. Consequently, there are no 

requirements for design, manufacture, 

maintenance, or management of 

propeller critical parts. 

EASA, however, has regulations that 

identify a specific definition for 

propeller critical part, and regulations to 

reduce the likelihood of propeller 

critical part failures. These regulations, 

EASA Certification Specifications for 

Propellers (CS–P), are CS–P 150, 

Propeller Safety Analysis and CS–P 160, 

Propeller Critical Parts Integrity. 

This proposal requires propeller 

manufacturers to identify propeller 

critical parts and provide adequate 

information for the design, manufacture, 

and maintenance of those parts to 

ensure their integrity throughout their 

service life. This proposed action is 

intended to be equivalent to the EASA 

regulations, thereby simplifying 

airworthiness approvals for export of 

these parts. 

Safety Analysis (§ 35.15) 

We are proposing to revise § 35.15(c) 

to require the identification of propeller 

critical parts, and that applicants 

establish the integrity of these parts 

using the standards in proposed § 35.16. 

Section 35.15(c) refers to the failure of 

these parts as primary failures of 

‘‘certain single elements’’. We recognize 

that a meaningful numerical estimate of 

the reliability of these parts is not 

possible, since over 100 million hours of 

service history on a part design would 

be needed to directly meet the 

probability requirements of the 

regulation. The regulations presently 

accommodate this inability to provide a 

meaningful estimate by stating that 

these failures cannot be ‘‘sensibly’’ 

estimated in numerical terms. 

Propeller Critical Parts (New § 35.16) 

Our proposed § 35.16 would require 

the development and execution of an 

engineering process, a manufacturing 

process, and a service management 

process for propeller critical parts. 

These three processes form a closedloop system that links the design intent, 

as defined by the engineering process, to 

how the part is manufactured and to 

how the part is maintained in service. 

Engineering, manufacturing, and service 

management function as an integrated 

system. This integrated systems 

approach recognizes that the effects of 

an action in one area would have an 

impact on the entire system. 

The proposed § 35.16 clarifies the 

wording of the EASA propeller critical 

parts requirement. Since the CS–P 160 

use of the term ‘‘plan’’ might infer a 

requirement that a ‘‘part-specific’’ 

document would be required, the term 

‘‘process’’ is used instead of ‘‘plan’’. In 

this context compliance will consist of 

a procedures manual that describes the 

manufacturer’s method(s) to control 

propeller critical parts. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 74751 

The engineering, manufacturing, and 

service management processes should 

provide clear information for propeller 

critical part management. ‘‘Process’’ in 

the context of the proposed requirement 

does not mean that all the required 

technical information is within a single 

document. When relevant information 

exists elsewhere, the process documents 

may reference, for example, drawings, 

material specifications, process 

specifications, as appropriate. These 

references should be clear enough to 

sufficiently identify the referenced 

document so as to allow the design 

history of an individual part to be 

traced. 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Proposed changes to Federal 

regulations must undergo several 

economic analyses. First, Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. And fourth, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4) requires agencies to 

prepare a written assessment of the 

costs, benefits, and other effects of 

proposed or final rules that include a 

Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

annually (adjusted for inflation with 

base year of 1995). This portion of the 

preamble summarizes the FAA’s 

analysis of the economic impacts of this 

proposed rule. 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined that this proposal has 

benefits, but no substantial costs, and 

that it is not ‘‘a significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

12866, nor ‘‘significant’’ as defined in 

DOT’s Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures. Further, this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, would reduce barriers to 

international trade, and would not 

impose an Unfunded Mandate on state, 

local, or tribal governments, or on the 

private sector. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits a statement to that effect, and 

the basis for it, be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this proposed rule. The reasoning for 

this determination follows: 

Presently, airplane propeller part 

manufacturers must satisfy both the 

code of federal aviation regulations 

(CFR) and the European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA) certification 

requirements to market their products in 

both the United States and Europe. 

Meeting two sets of certification 

requirements raises the cost of 

developing new airplane propeller parts 

often with no increase in safety. In the 

interest of fostering international trade, 

lowering the cost of airplane propeller 

parts development, and making the 

certification process more efficient, the 

FAA, EASA, and airplane propeller part 

manufacturers worked to create to the 

maximum extent possible a single set of 

certification requirements accepted in 

both the United States and Europe. 

These efforts are referred to as 

harmonization. 

Propellers contain critical parts whose 

primary failure can result in a 

hazardous propeller effect. 14 CFR part 

35 does not identify what a propeller 

critical part is, and consequently, has no 

specific requirement(s) for their design, 

manufacture, maintenance, or 

management. EASA however, has 

regulations that identify what propeller 

critical parts are, and regulations to 

reduce the likelihood of propeller 

critical part failures. 

This proposed rule would revise 

§ 35.15 and add a new § 35.16 to part 35 

with the ‘‘more stringent’’ sections CS– 

P 150 Propeller Safety Analysis and CS– 

P 160 Propeller Critical Parts Integrity of 

the EASA requirements. The difference 

between the FAA and EASA regulations 

is that the FAA currently does not 

identify a means of compliance for 

propeller critical parts and EASA does. 

The FAA has concluded for the reasons 

previously discussed in the preamble 

that the adoption of these EASA 

requirements into the CFR is the most 

efficient way to harmonize these 

sections and in so doing, the existing 

level of safety will be preserved. 

Manufacturers of airplane propeller 

critical parts, as well as airplane 

propeller critical part modifiers 

potentially would be affected by the 

proposed amendment. 

A review of current manufacturers of 

airplane propeller parts, certificated 

under part 35, has revealed that all 

manufacturers of such future airplane 

propeller parts are expected to continue 

their current practice of compliance 

under part 35 of the CFR and the EASA 

certification requirements. Since future 

certificated airplane propeller parts are 

expected to meet the existing sections 

CS–P 150 Propeller Safety Analysis and 

CS–P 160 Propeller Critical Parts 

Integrity of the EASA requirements and 

this proposal simply adopts the same 

EASA requirement, manufacturers 

would incur no additional cost resulting 

from this proposal. Therefore, the FAA 

estimates that there are no costs 

associated with this proposal. 

In fact, manufacturers are expected to 

receive cost-savings because they would 

not have to build and certificate critical 

propeller parts to two different 

authorities’ certification specifications 

and rules. 

The FAA, however, has not attempted 

to quantify the cost savings that may 

accrue due to this specific proposal, 

beyond noting that while they may be 

minimal, they contribute to a potential 

harmonization savings. The agency 

concludes that because there is 

consensus among potentially impacted 

airplane propeller critical parts 

manufacturers that savings will result, 

further analysis is not required. 

The FAA requests comments with 

supporting documentation in regard to 

the conclusions contained in this 

section. 

FAA has, therefore, determined that 

this proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
74752 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

The FAA believes that this proposed 

rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities for the 

following reason. The net effect of the 

proposed rule is minimum regulatory 

cost relief. The proposed rule requires 

that new propeller manufacturers meet 

just the ‘‘more stringent’’ European 

certification requirement, CS–P 150, 

Propeller Safety Analysis and CS–P 160, 

Propeller Critical Parts, rather than both 

the United States and European 

standards. Propeller manufacturers 

already meet or expect to meet this 

standard as well as the existing CFR 

requirement. 

Given that this proposed rule has 

minimal to no costs, and could be costrelieving, the FAA certifies that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. We request 

comment. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. 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 as the rule is in 

accord with the Trade Agreements Act 

as the proposed rule uses European 

standards as the basis for United States 

regulation. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate; therefore, the 

requirements of Title II of the Act do not 

apply. 

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. The 

FAA has determined that there would 

be no new requirement for information 

collection 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 

conform our regulations to International 

Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

to the maximum extent practicable. The 

FAA has determined that there are no 

ICAO Standards and Recommended 

Practices that correspond to these 

proposed regulations. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

Chapter 3, paragraph 312f and involves 

no extraordinary circumstances. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has determined that this action 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, or the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, and, 

therefore, would not have Federalism 

implications. 

Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy 

Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it would not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and would not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

Additional Information 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from adopting 

the proposals in this document. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the proposal, explain 

the reason for any recommended 

change, and include supporting data. To 

ensure the docket does not contain 

duplicate comments, commenters 

should send only one copy of written 

comments, or if comments are filed 

electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on this proposal, the FAA will consider 

all comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The FAA 

will consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. The agency may 

change this proposal in light of the 

comments it receives. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information: Commenters should not 

file proprietary or confidential business 

information in the docket. Such 

information must be sent or delivered 

directly to the person identified in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this document, and marked as 

proprietary or confidential. If submitting 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2011 / Proposed Rules 74753 

information on a disk or CD–ROM, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD–ROM, and 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is proprietary or confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, the agency does not 

place it in the docket. Any such 

proprietary information is held in a 

separate file to which the public does 

not have access, and the FAA places a 

note in the docket that it has received 

it. If the FAA receives a request to 

examine or copy this information, it 

treats it as any other request under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552). The FAA processes such a request 

under Department of Transportation 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s web page at http:// 

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

Copies may also be obtained 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. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 35 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

Safety, Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend chapter I of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 35—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: PROPELLERS 

1. The authority citation for part 35 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702, 44704. 

2. Amend § 35.15 by revising 

paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 35.15 Safety Analysis. 

* * * * * 

(c) The primary failures of certain 

single propeller 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, those elements must 

be identified as propeller critical parts. 

(d) For propeller critical parts, 

applicants must meet the prescribed 

integrity specifications of § 35.16. These 

instances must be stated in the safety 

analysis. 

* * * * * 

3. Add § 35.16 to subpart B to read as 

follows: 

§ 35.16 Propeller Critical Parts. 

The integrity of each propeller critical 

part identified by the safety analysis 

required by § 35.15 must be established 

by: 

(a) A defined engineering process for 

ensuring the integrity of the propeller 

critical part throughout its service life, 

(b) A defined manufacturing process 

that identifies the requirements to 

consistently produce the propeller 

critical part as required by the 

engineering process, and 

(c) A defined service management 

process that identifies the continued 

airworthiness requirements of the 

propeller critical part as required by the 

engineering process. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 31, 

2011. 

Dorenda D. Baker, 

Director, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–30952 Filed 11–30–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 501 

Authority To Manufacture and 

Distribute Postage Evidencing 

Systems 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service is 

proposing an editorial revision of the 

rules governing the inventory control 

processes of Postage Evidencing 

Systems (PES) provided to customers by 

manufacturers or distributors. The 

proposed changes are intended to clarify 

the rules, and reflect a change in the 

name of the office responsible for 

enforcing them. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed 

procedures must be received on or 

before January 3, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written 

comments to the Manager, Payment 

Technology, U.S. Postal Service, 475 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Room 3660, 

Washington, DC 20260–4110. Copies of 

all written comments will be available 

for inspection and photocopying 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, at the Payment 

Technology office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marlo Kay Ivey, Business Programs 

Specialist, Payment Technology, U.S. 

Postal Service, at (202) 268–7613. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The office 

formerly known as Postage Technology 

Management (PTM) is now known as 

Payment Technology. Accordingly, the 

Postal Service finds it is necessary to 

modify the numerous references to PTM 

in 39 CFR 501.14 to reflect the new 

name. In addition, the Postal Service 

believes it is appropriate to take this 

opportunity to make a number of minor 

editorial changes throughout § 501.14 to 

improve its clarity. None of these 

changes is intended to modify the 

substantive requirements of the section. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 501 

Administrative practice and 

procedure. 

Accordingly, 39 CFR Part 501 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 501—AUTHORIZATION TO 

MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTE 

POSTAGE EVIDENCING SYSTEMS 

1. The authority citation for 39 CFR 

Part 501 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 

401, 403, 404, 410, 2601, 2605, Inspector 

General Act of 1978, as amended (Pub. L. 95– 

452, as amended); 5 U.S.C. App. 3. 

2. Section 501.14 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 501.14 Postage Evidencing System 

inventory control processes. 

(a) Each authorized provider of 

Postage Evidencing Systems must 

permanently hold title to all Postage 

Evidencing Systems that it 

manufactures or distributes, except 

those purchased by the Postal Service or 

distributed outside the United States. 

(b) An authorized provider must 

maintain sufficient facilities for and 

records of the business relationship, 

distribution, control, storage, 

maintenance, repair, replacement, and 

destruction or disposal of all Postage 

Evidencing Systems and their 

components to enable accurate 

accounting and location thereof 

throughout the entire life cycle of each 

Postage Evidencing System. A complete 

record shall entail a list by serial 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS