```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74749-74753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30952]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 74750]]

     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--
    [rtarr9] Have a specific definition for a propeller critical part, 
or--
    [rtarr9] 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 (Sec.  35.15)

    We are proposing to revise Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  35.16)

    Our proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 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 Sec.  35.15 and add a new Sec.  
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,

[[Page 74752]]

including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the 
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required. The certification must include a statement providing the 
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    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 
cost-relieving, 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

[[Page 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 Sec.  35.15 by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  35.16. These instances 
must be stated in the safety analysis.
* * * * *
    3. Add Sec.  35.16 to subpart B to read as follows:

Sec.  35.16  Propeller Critical Parts.

    The integrity of each propeller critical part identified by the 
safety analysis required by Sec.  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
```