[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74749-74753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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: [email protected].
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:
[email protected].
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