4038 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 791—RULES OF NCUA BOARD 

PROCEDURES; PROMULGATION OF 

NCUA RULES AND REGULATIONS; 

PUBLIC OBSERVATION OF NCUA 

BOARD MEETINGS 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 791 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1766, 1789 and 5 

U.S.C. 552b. 

■ 6. In § 791.8, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 791.8 Promulgation of NCUA rules and 

regulations. 

* * * * * 

(a) NCUA’s procedures for developing 

regulations are governed by the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

551 et seq.), the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and NCUA’s 

policies for the promulgation of rules 

and regulations as set forth in its 

Interpretive Ruling and Policy 

Statement 87–2 as amended by 

Interpretive Ruling and Policy 

Statements 03–2 and 13–1. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–00864 Filed 1–17–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 35 

[Docket No.: FAA–2010–0940–0001; Amdt. 

No. 35–9] 

RIN 2120–AJ88 

Critical Parts for Airplane Propellers 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) is amending the 

airworthiness standards for airplane 

propellers. This action would require a 

safety analysis to identify a propeller 

critical part. Manufacturers would 

identify propeller critical parts, and 

establish engineering, manufacturing, 

and maintenance processes for propeller 

critical parts. These new requirements 

provide an added margin of safety for 

the continued airworthiness of propeller 

critical parts by requiring a system of 

processes to identify and manage these 

parts throughout their service life. This 

rule would eliminate regulatory 

differences between part 35 and 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) propeller critical parts 

requirements, thereby simplifying 

airworthiness approvals for exports. 

DATES: Effective March 19, 2013. 

Affected parties, however, are not 

required to comply with the information 

collection requirement[s] in § 35.16 

until the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approves the collection 

and assigns a control number under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The 

FAA will publish in the Federal 

Register a notice of the control 

number[s] assigned by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for this 

[these] information collection 

requirement[s]. 

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 

the Regional Counsel, 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 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 airplane propellers. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

that authority because it updates the 

existing regulations for airplane 

propellers. 

I. Overview of Final 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 defines and requires the 

identification of propeller critical parts, 

and establishes requirements to ensure 

the integrity of those parts. 

II. 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 rule addresses 

those recommendations, a copy of 

which can be found in the docket of this 

rulemaking. 

A. Statement of the Problem 

Propeller critical parts are not 

adequately addressed by current 

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. 

B. Summary of the NPRM 

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. The EASA regulations 

specifically require 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 FAA action establishes 

standards equivalent to the EASA 

regulations, thereby simplifying 

airworthiness approvals for export of 

these parts. 

Safety Analysis (§ 35.15) 

We proposed 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 4039 

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. Current regulations 

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 closed 

loop 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 imply 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. 

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, and 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. 

The FAA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking on December 1, 

2011, requesting pubic comments [76 

FR 74749]. The comment period closed 

on January 30, 2012. 

C. General Overview of Comments 

The FAA received three comments. 

One was from a repair station, 

Sensenich Propeller Service, and the 

others were from propeller 

manufacturers, Hamilton Sundstrand 

and Hartzell Propeller. The comments 

requested clarification on how the rule 

would be applied to propeller parts 

being serviced, old (legacy) propellers 

and part 45 Identification and 

Registration and Marking requirements. 

The comments did not suggest changes 

to the proposal. 

III. Discussion of Public Comments and 

Final Rule 

Sensenich Propeller Service asked 

would this rule require the replacement 

of airworthy parts that were found to 

have no defects. This rule would not. 

Nor does it require propeller 

manufacturers to revise manuals for 

existing certified propellers. This rule 

will result in manuals that are more 

informative with respect to propeller 

critical parts, when manuals are revised 

or developed for amended or new 

propeller certification programs. 

Hamilton Sundstrand wanted to know 

if some sort of grandfather clause for 

legacy propellers was contemplated. 

This rule is applicable to propellers 

based on the propeller certification 

basis. Therefore, the rule will be 

applicable to new propellers, and may 

be applicable to propellers certified to 

earlier amendments, if the type design 

is changed sufficiently. See 14 CFR 

§ 21.101 Designation of applicable 

regulations. The current regulations 

accommodate older propellers as 

needed. 

Hartzell Propeller, Inc., requested 

clarification on the applicability of 

paragraph (c) of § 45.15 Identification 

and registration marking for a propeller 

critical part. The propeller critical parts 

rule does address part marking. 

Propellers, propeller blades, and hubs 

are subject to the marking requirements 

of §§ 45.11 and 45.13. Section 45.15 (c) 

is not applicable to critical propeller 

parts that do not have a replacement 

time, inspection interval, or related 

procedure specified in the 

Airworthiness Limitations Section of a 

manufacturer’s maintenance manual or 

Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 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, they be the basis of U.S. 

standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect, 

and the basis for it to 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 final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows. 

Presently, airplane propeller part 

manufacturers must satisfy both the 

code of federal 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 currently identify what a 

propeller critical part is, and 

consequently, has no specific 

requirement(s) for their design, 

manufacture, maintenance, or 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
4040 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

management. EASA however, has 

regulations that identify what propeller 

critical parts are, and regulations to 

reduce the likelihood of propeller 

critical part failures. 

This rule will revise § 35.15 and add 

a new § 35.16 to part 35 with EASA’s 

‘‘more stringent’’ CS–P 150 Propeller 

Safety Analysis and CS–P 160 Propeller 

Critical Parts Integrity requirements. 

The FAA has concluded for the reasons 

previously discussed in the preamble, 

the adoption of these EASA 

requirements into the CFR is the most 

efficient way to harmonize these 

sections, and in so doing, enhance the 

existing level of safety. 

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 EASA’s existing CS–P 

150 Propeller Safety Analysis and CS– 

P 160 Propeller Critical Parts Integrity 

requirements, and this rule simply 

adopts the same EASA requirement, 

manufacturers will incur no additional 

cost resulting from this rule. Therefore, 

the FAA estimates that there are no 

more than minimal costs associated 

with this final rule. 

The FAA, however, has not attempted 

to quantify the cost savings that may 

accrue from this rule, beyond noting 

that while it may be minimal, it 

contributes to a potential harmonization 

savings. Furthermore, we did not 

receive comments regarding this 

determination that this rule will have 

minimal cost with a possible cost 

savings to the industry. 

The FAA has therefore determined 

this final 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. 

B. 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 for 

profit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

The FAA believes that this rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

for the following reason. The net effect 

of the rule is minimum regulatory cost 

relief. The rule requires that new 

propeller manufacturers meet the ‘‘more 

stringent’’ European certification 

requirement, CS–P 150, Propeller Safety 

Analysis and CS–P 160, Propeller 

Critical Parts, rather than both the U.S. 

and European standards. Propeller 

manufacturers already meet or expect to 

meet this standard as well as the 

existing CFR requirement. 

Given that this rule has minimal to no 

costs, could be cost-relieving, and as we 

received no comments on this 

determination for the NPRM, as the 

Administrator, I certify that this final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

C. 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, be the basis for U. S. 

standards. The FAA has assessed the 

potential effect of this final rule and 

determined that it is in accord with the 

Trade Agreements Act as the rule uses 

European standards as the basis for 

United States regulation. 

D. 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 final rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

E. 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. 

According to the 1995 amendments to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 

1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. 

This final rule will impose the 

following new information collection 

requirements. As required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted 

these information collection 

amendments to OMB for its review. 

Notice of OMB approval for this 

information collection will be published 

in a future Federal Register document. 

Summary: On December 1, 2011, FAA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking titled ‘‘Critical Parts for 

Airplane Propellers’’ (76 FR 74749). 

This activity contains new Paperwork 

Reduction Act recordkeeping 

requirements that were not addressed in 

that notice of proposed rulemaking, and 

which are addressed here. The rule will 

require that U.S. companies who 

manufacture critical parts for airplane 

propellers update their manuals to 

record engineering, manufacture, and 

maintenance processes for propeller 

critical parts. There are currently three 

U.S. companies who will be required to 

create or revise their manuals to include 

these processes. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 4041 

Public comments: We received no 

comments on information collection 

Use: This information will be used by 

the propeller manufacturer to show 

compliance with the propeller critical 

parts requirements. 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 need and use of the information 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. 

Respondents: There are five propeller 

manufacturers that will be affected by 

the new requirement. Responses were 

provided by two of the manufacturers 

who have already prepared propeller 

critical parts manuals and are compliant 

with the final rule. The information 

provided by the two manufacturers was 

used to establish the paperwork 

required to show compliance with the 

propeller critical parts requirements for 

the remaining three propeller 

manufacturers. 

Frequency: The information will only 

need to be collected once to show 

compliance with the FAA propeller 

critical part rule § 35.16. If the 

information is not collected, the 

propeller manufacturer will not be able 

to obtain a type certificate for the 

propeller. 

Annual Burden Estimate: There will 

be no annualized cost to the Federal 

Government. Industry has informed the 

FAA that the one-time paperwork 

requirement will take approximately 40 

hours and consist of 18 pages per 

manufacturer. The FAA estimated 120 

hours as the total hourly burden by 

taking the product of the number of 

affected U.S. manufacturers with the 

hourly burden. There will be a one-time 

cost of $3,555.60 per respondent which 

will occur on the effective date of the 

rule. The total cost for the three 

respondents is $10,666.80. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

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 to the maximum extent 

practicable. The FAA has determined 

that there are no ICAO Standards that 

correspond to these regulations. 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609 and has determined that 

this action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph Chapter 3, paragraph 312f 

and involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency determined that this action will 

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, 

does not have Federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final 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 is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

VI. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document my be obtained by using the 

Internet— 

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking 

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

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or 

3. Access the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

Comments received may be viewed by 

going to http://www.regulations.gov and 

following the online instructions to 

search the docket number for this 

action. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of the FAA’s dockets 

by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

C. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document, may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the Internet, visit http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects 14 CFR Part 35 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
4042 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 13 / Friday, January 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 January 8, 

2013. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–01041 Filed 1–17–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0724; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–181–AD; Amendment 

39–17299; AD 2012–26–04] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain The Boeing Company Model 

757–200, –200PF, and –200CB series 

airplanes powered by Rolls-Royce 

engines. That AD currently requires 

repetitive inspections of the shim 

installation between the drag brace 

fitting vertical flange and bulkhead, and 

repair if necessary; for certain airplanes, 

an inspection for cracking of the four 

critical fastener holes in the horizontal 

flange, and repair if necessary; and, for 

airplanes without conclusive records of 

previous inspections, performing the 

existing actions. This new AD reduces 

the repetitive inspection interval; adds 

repetitive detailed inspections for 

cracking of the bulkhead, and repair if 

necessary; allows an extension of the 

repetitive intervals for certain airplanes 

by also doing repetitive ultrasonic 

inspections for cracking of the 

bulkhead, and repair if necessary; and 

provides an option for a high frequency 

eddy current inspection for cracking of 

the critical fastener holes, and repair if 

necessary. This action also adds a 

terminating action for certain repetitive 

inspections. This AD was prompted by 

reports of loose fasteners and cracks at 

the joint common to the aft torque 

bulkhead and strut-to-diagonal brace 

fitting, and one report of such damage 

occurring less than 3,000 flight cycles 

after the last inspection. We are issuing 

this AD to detect and correct cracks, 

loose and broken bolts, and shim 

migration in the joint between the aft 

torque bulkhead and the strut-todiagonal brace fitting, which could 

result in damage to the strut and 

consequent separation of the strut and 

engine from the airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective February 22, 

2013. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the AD 

as of February 22, 2013. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain other publication listed in 

this AD as of August 24, 2007 (72 FR 

44753, August 9, 2007). 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; 

phone: 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax: 

206–766–5680; Internet: https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, WA. For information on 

the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Document Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 

FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; phone 425– 

917–6440; fax 425–917–6590; email: 

Nancy.Marsh@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to 

amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede 

airworthiness directive (AD) 2008–05– 

10, Amendment 39–15404 (73 FR 

11347, March 3, 2008). (AD 2008–05–10 

superseded AD 2007–16–13, 

Amendment 39–15152 (72 FR 44753, 

August 9, 2007); and AD 2007–16–13 

superseded AD 2005–12–04, 

Amendment 39–14120 (70 FR 34313, 

June 14, 2005).) AD 2008–05–10 applies 

to the specified products. The SNPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 21, 2012 (77 FR 37332). The 

original NPRM (76 FR 52901, August 24, 

2011) proposed to continue to require 

repetitive inspections of the shim 

installation between the engine strut 

vertical flange and bulkhead, and repair 

if necessary. That NPRM also proposed 

to continue to require, for certain 

airplanes, inspecting for cracking of the 

four critical fastener holes in the 

horizontal flange, and repair if 

necessary; and, for airplanes without 

conclusive records of previous 

inspections, performing the existing 

actions. Additionally, that NPRM 

proposed to reduce the repetitive 

inspection interval, add repetitive 

detailed inspections for cracking of the 

bulkhead, and repair if necessary; 

extend the repetitive intervals for 

certain airplanes by also doing 

repetitive ultrasonic inspections for 

cracking of the bulkhead, and repair if 

necessary; and add an option for a high 

frequency eddy current inspection for 

cracking of the critical fastener holes, 

and repair if necessary. The SNPRM 

proposed to add a terminating action for 

certain repetitive inspections. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the proposal (77 FR 37332, 

June 21, 2012) and the FAA’s response 

to each comment. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with