[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 13 (Friday, January 18, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4038-4042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01041]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec. 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:
[email protected]. 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: [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 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--
[rtarr8] Have a specific definition for a propeller critical part,
or
[rtarr8] 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 (Sec. 35.15)
We proposed 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
[[Page 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 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 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. Sec.
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
[[Page 4040]]
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 Sec. 35.15 and add a new Sec. 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.
[[Page 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 Sec. 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
0
1. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
0
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.
[[Page 4042]]
(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.
* * * * *
0
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 January 8, 2013.
Michael P. Huerta,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-01041 Filed 1-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P