Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/01/18/2013-01041/critical-parts-for-airplane-propellers
Timestamp: 2015-04-25 06:34:13
Document Index: 51961569

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 21', '§ 45', '§ 45', 'art 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', 'art 35', '§ 35', 'art 35', 'ART 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35']

Federal Register | Critical Parts for Airplane Propellers
Dates: Effective March 19, 2013.
-4042 (5 pages)
Document Number: 2013-01041
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-01041 Related Topics
Propeller Critical Parts Integrity 35.16 3 actions from December 1st, 2011 to February 2013
Safety Analysis (§ 35.15)
Propeller Critical Parts (New § 35.16)
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].
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 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.
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.
III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule Back to Top
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.
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 (96) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (96) 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.
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 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.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (96) (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.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (96), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (103), 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.
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. Public comments: We received no comments on information collection
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.
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.
VI. How To Obtain Additional Information Back to Top
3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
List of Subjects 14 CFR Part 35 Back to Top
PART 35—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: PROPELLERS Back to Top
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: