Proposed Rule: Airworthiness Directives: Propellers

18136
Proposed Rules Federal Register

Vol. 72, No. 69
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, the Internet at the web address in the
contains notices to the public of the proposed between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday ADDRESSES section.
issuance of rules and regulations. The through Friday, except Federal holidays. Privacy Act: Using the search function
purpose of these notices is to give interested For more information on the of our docket Web site, anyone can find
persons an opportunity to participate in the and read the comments received into
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of any of our dockets, including the name
rules.
this document. of the individual sending the comment
Privacy: We will post all comments (or signing the comment on behalf of an
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION we receive, without change, to http:// association, business, labor union, etc.).
dms.dot.gov, including any personal You may review DOT’s complete
Federal Aviation Administration information that you provide. For more Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
information, see the Privacy Act Register published on April 11, 2000
14 CFR Parts 23, 25, 33, and 35 discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY (65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit
INFORMATION section of this document. http://dms.dot.gov.
[Docket No. FAA 2007–27310; Notice No. Before acting on this proposal, we
07–04] Docket: To read background
documents or comments received, go to will consider all comments we receive
RIN 2120–AI95
http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to on or before the closing date for
Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the comments. We will consider comments
Airworthiness Standards; Propellers filed late if it is possible to do so
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street,
AGENCY: Federal Aviation SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. without incurring expense or delay. We
Administration (FAA), DOT. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, may change this proposal in light of the
except Federal holidays. comments we receive.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
If you want the FAA to acknowledge
(NPRM). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay receipt of your comments on this
Turnberg, Engine and Propeller proposal, include with your comments
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation
Directorate Standards Staff, ANE–110, a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on
Administration (FAA) is proposing to
Federal Aviation Administration, 12 which the docket number appears. We
revise the airworthiness standards for
New England Executive Park, will stamp the date on the postcard and
the issuance of original and amended
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803–5299; mail it to you.
type certificates for airplane propellers.
telephone (781) 238–7116; facsimile
The existing propeller requirements do Availability of NPRMs
(781) 238–7199, e-mail:
not adequately address the
jay.turnberg@faa.gov. You can get an electronic copy using
technological advances of the past
twenty years. The proposed standards SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
the Internet by:
1. Searching the Department of
would address the current advances in
Comments Invited Transportation’s electronic Docket
technology and would harmonize FAA
Management System (DMS) Web page
and European Aviation Safety Agency The FAA invites interested persons to
(http://dms.dot.gov/search);
(EASA) propeller certification participate in rulemaking by submitting 2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and
requirements, thereby simplifying written data, views, or arguments on Policies Web page at http://
airworthiness approvals for imports and this proposed rule. We also invite www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
exports. comments relating to the environmental, 3. Accessing the Government Printing
DATES: Comments must be received on energy, federalism, or economic impact Office’s Web page at http://
or before June 11, 2007. that might result from adopting the www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, proposals in this notice. The most You can also get a copy by sending a
identified by Docket No. FAA–2007– helpful comments reference a specific request to the Federal Aviation
27310, using any of the following portion of the proposal, explain the Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
methods: reason for any recommended change, ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue,
DOT Docket Web site: Got to http:// and include supporting data. We ask SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions that you send us two copies of written calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to
for sending your comments comments. identify the docket number, notice
electronically. We will file in the docket all number, or amendment number of this
Government-wide rulemaking Web comments we receive, as well as a rulemaking.
site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov report summarizing each substantive
public contact with FAA personnel Background
and follow the instructions for sending
your comments electronically. concerning this proposed rulemaking. Advances in technology have meant
Mail: Docket Management Facility; The docket is available for public that many propeller certification
cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 inspection before and after the comment programs over the past decade have
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, closing date. If you wish to review the required repeated application of special
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– docket in person, go to the address in conditions or special tests. In addition,
001 the ADDRESSES section of this preamble the need to demonstrate compliance
Fax: 1–202–493–2251 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday with both FAA and EASA requirements
Hand Delivery: Room Pl–401 on the through Friday, except Federal holidays. has placed additional burdens on
plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 You may also review the docket using propeller manufacturers who require
VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:09 Apr 10, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11APP1.SGM 11APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18137
foreign certification. Therefore, we 7. 14 CFR Part 21, Certification extrapolation if testing the entire
concluded that part 35 should be Procedures for Products and Parts. airplane operational envelope is not
substantially revised. 8. 14 CFR Part 23, Airworthiness feasible. The paragraph would also
In 1994, the FAA began an initiative Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, permit the determination of stress by
to harmonize FAA propeller and Commuter Category Airplanes. comparison with a similar airplane for
certification requirements with Europe’s 9. 14 CFR Part 25, Airworthiness which these measurements were made.
Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) Standards: Transport Category Our proposed paragraph, however,
regulations (now the EASA certification Airplanes. would not permit the use of service
specifications). As part of this effort, the 10. 14 CFR Part 33, Airworthiness experience to determine stresses.
FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Standards: Engines.
Advisory Committee through its Engine Proposed paragraph (a) harmonizes
11. 14 CFR Part 35, Airworthiness
Harmonization Working Group (EHWG) with CS–P 530(b) by requiring that
Standards: Propellers.
to compare part 35 with JAA applicants investigate stress peaks or
requirements, and identify differences. Section-by-Section Discussion of the resonant conditions.
The EHWG was also to update existing Proposals Proposed paragraph (b) harmonizes
requirements to reflect advancements in Sections 23.905 and 25.905 Propellers with CS–P 530(a) by requiring that
propeller design, including design and and Section 33.19 Durability applicants address flutter.
construction of composite material
We propose requiring that propeller Proposed paragraph (c) would
propellers, propeller control systems
controls that are certified as part of the harmonize with CS–P 550 by requiring
(such as dual acting control systems),
airplane or engine type design meet the that applicants conduct a fatigue
and electronic controls for propellers.
To complete this task, the EHWG same requirements as propeller controls evaluation on the propeller. It would
established the Propeller Harmonization that are certified as part of the propeller also harmonize with CS–P 550 by
Working Group, with members from type design. requiring that applicants revise the
industry and government from Canada, airplane and propeller operating and
Sections 23.907 and 25.907 Propeller
France, Germany, United Kingdom, and Vibration and Fatigue airworthiness limitations sections as
the United States. The Propeller needed to show compliance with the
Harmonization Working Group focused We propose revising §§ 23.907 and fatigue requirements.
on requirement differences between part 25.907 to make them identical, and
Prior to the propeller vibration and
35 and Joint Aviation Requirements— changing the titles of both sections from
fatigue evaluation for the airplane
Propellers (JAR–P) in six areas: ‘‘Propeller vibration’’ to ‘‘Propeller
vibration and fatigue,’’ to reflect the installation, the propeller undergoes a
1. Those in part 35, but not in JAR– substantial amount of structural
P; revised requirements.
These sections require that a propeller evaluation during its certification to
2. Those in both part 35 and JAR–P, show compliance with part 35.
but not accepted as equivalent for both; demonstrate safe vibration compatibility
with the airplane; they harmonize with Proposed paragraph (c) would require
3. Those accepted as equivalent for
both part 35 and JAR–P; CS–P 530, Vibration and Aeroelastic that the data obtained from the part 35
4. Those in which intent is not clear; Effects and CS–P 550, Fatigue evaluation be used in the propeller
5. Those that may be simplified or Evaluation. The vibration evaluation of fatigue evaluation.
deleted; and a propeller on an airplane involves both Section 25.901 Installation
6. Those that are new requirements vibration and fatigue requirements. The
not in either part 35 or JAR–P. vibration evaluation of the propeller We propose to add a reference in this
This NPRM proposes to harmonize depends on the airplane and engine section to the propeller installation
FAA part 35 propeller certification installation; the proposed requirements instructions in § 35.3 to ensure that part
requirements with most of the would show this dependency. 25 airplane comply with the installation
requirements of EASA’s Certification The current requirements differ for instructions for the propeller.
Specifications for Propellers (CS–P). part 23 and 25 airplanes and fail to
address important areas. They do not Part 35—Airworthiness Standards:
Reference Material
address fatigue evaluation or require Propellers
We relied on the following material as
comparison to the fatigue limits and We propose to renumber certain part
a basis for this proposed rule:
1. Special Conditions No. 35–ANE– other structural data established in part 35 regulations to harmonize part 35
01, Hamilton Standard Model 247F 35. They do not require a revision of the with EASA’s CS–P. Part 35 designation
Propeller, Docket No. 94–ANE–50. propeller operating and airworthiness
will differ from the CS–P designation by
2. Special Conditions No. 35–ANE– limitations, and they fail to address the
a zero added to the CS–P designation.
02, Hamilton Standard Model 568F flutter requirements of EASA’s
For example, our proposed § 35.35
Propeller, Docket No. 94–ANE–60. Certification Specifications for
Centrifugal load tests will be equivalent
3. Special Conditions No. 35–ANE– Propellers (CS–P). In the case of
to the CS–P 350 Centrifugal Load Tests.
03, Hamilton Standard Model 568F § 23.907, they permit the use of service
Propeller, Docket No. 94–ANE–61. experience to show compliance, which Subpart A—General
4. Special Conditions SC–92–03–NE, is an unsatisfactory method to show the
Hartzell Propeller, Inc. Model HD–E6C– safety of the installation. This subpart addresses the
3( )/E13482K Dual Acting Propeller, Our proposed new paragraph (a) for requirements for issuing propeller type
Docket No. 92–ANE–47. §§ 23.907 and 25.907 would require that certificates and changes to those type
5. Joint Airworthiness applicants determine the stresses certificates. Our proposed revisions
Requirements—Propellers, JAR–P, throughout the declared operational clarify the propeller configuration to be
Change 7, October 22, 1987. envelope of the airplane. It would certificated; list the requirements for
6. Certification Specifications for permit applicants to determine stresses installing and operating the propeller;
Propellers (CS–P), Decision No. 2003/7/ by analysis based on direct testing or by and specify ratings and operating
RM, October 24, 2003. interpolation and measured data limitations.
18138 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Section 35.1 Applicability Our proposed list in paragraph (b) new propeller certification programs
We propose adding a new paragraph does not represent all the ratings and during the past decade. The ultimate
(c) to establish the relationship between operating limits that may be required for objective of the safety analysis is to
propeller and airplane certification. safe propeller operation. Paragraph (a) ensure that the collective risk from all
We propose adding a paragraph (d) to would state that the ratings and propeller failure conditions is
refine the propeller definition for this operating limitations must include acceptably low. The basis of safety
part. Paragraph (d) would define a limitations based on the operating analysis is the concept that an
propeller and propeller system conditions demonstrated during the acceptable total propeller design risk is
consistent with how those terms are tests required by this part and any other achievable by managing individual risks
used in part 35. information necessary for safe propeller to acceptable levels. This concept
operation. emphasizes reducing the risk of an
Section 35.2 Propeller Configuration We propose changing the title of event proportionally with the severity of
and Identification § 35.5 to ‘‘Propeller ratings and the hazard it represents.
We propose a new § 35.2(a) that operating limitations’’ to reflect the Our proposed revision would add
would require the applicant to provide revised requirements and to harmonize definitions for hazardous and major
a list of all the components and parts, with CS–P 50, Propeller Ratings and propeller effects, based on CS–P,
including references to the relevant Operating Limitations. historical JAR–P requirements, and the
drawings and software design data, that propeller special conditions listed
Section 35.7 Features and
defines the type design of the propeller under ‘‘Reference Material.’’ These
the applicant wants approved. This Characteristics
definitions would be used throughout
requirement would improve the We propose a new § 35.7 that will part 35 and would only apply to this
documentation regarding the propeller incorporate requirements formerly in part.
components that is included within the § 35.15, Design features. Showing compliance with the
propeller type design. The proposed § 35.7(a) requires that a requirements of this section would not
We propose a new § 35.2(b) that propeller not have any features or mean that a propeller is suitable for use
would reinforce the link between parts characteristics that make it unsafe for on all or any airplane. For example, a
35 and 45 and harmonize with the CS– the purposes for which it is being part 25 airplane may require different
P. certified. failure effects and probabilities of
The proposed § 35.7(b) indicates the failure than a part 23 airplane would.
Section 35.3 Instructions for Propeller
applicant’s responsibilities if a failure
Installation and Operation Section 35.17 Materials and
occurs during a certification test.
We propose to revise § 35.3 to require Manufacturing Methods
specific content in propeller installation Subpart B—Design and Construction
We propose to revise and rename this
and operation instructions. The revision Part 35 subpart B addresses design
section from ‘‘Materials’’ to ‘‘Materials
would require applicants to prepare and construction requirements for
and manufacturing methods’’ to reflect
installation instructions containing the propellers. This proposed revision
the revised requirements. Our proposed
data required by the airplane would maintain the intent of the current
revision would require that the
manufacturer to install and operate the subpart. We propose, however, to
materials specifications and
propeller within the limitations of the remove sections that are redundant or
manufacturing methods used by
propeller type design. no longer applicable and to revise or
The proposed revision would rename applicants be acceptable to the FAA.
add sections that address existing and
§ 35.3 to ‘‘Instructions for propeller The revision would remove the list of
future design and construction
installation and operation’’ to reflect the examples of approved specifications
technology not adequately covered by
revised requirements. and change the word ‘‘approved’’ to
the current requirements.
‘‘acceptable.’’ This change would reflect
Section 35.5 Propeller Ratings and Section 35.11 Applicability the level of review of the specifications
Operating Limitations by the FAA.
Section 35.11 is a descriptive
We propose revising § 35.5 by statement about subpart B compliance Our proposed revision would also
modifying the requirements about that is fully addressed within § 35.1. require that applicants consider the
establishing ratings and operating Therefore, we propose to remove § 35.11 effects of environmental conditions
limitations. In our proposed paragraph and mark the section ‘‘reserved.’’ expected in service when assessing
(a), the applicant would establish the material suitability and durability. We
ratings and operating limitations, which Section 35.13 General are including consideration for
would be subject to approval by the Section 35.13 is a descriptive environmental effects in this proposed
Administrator. This change reflects the statement about subpart B compliance section because many materials used in
process used now to establish the that is fully addressed within § 35.1. the propeller design depend on the
propeller limitations and ratings. Therefore, we propose to remove § 35.13 environment in which the propeller
We propose adding paragraph (b), and mark the section ‘‘reserved.’’ operates. This is especially relevant for
which lists specific ratings and limits composite materials that have age-
applicants must address. The list would Section 35.15 Safety Analysis dependent properties, as well as
include ratings for takeoff power and We propose to revise § 35.15, Design properties affected by humidity and
rotational speed, maximum continuous features, and rename it ‘‘Safety temperature.
power and rotational speed. The analysis’’ to reflect its revised Our proposed revision would also
proposed paragraph would also requirements. harmonize with CS–P requirements by
document transient overspeed and Our proposed revision would require requiring that applicants use the most
overtorque limits that would not require that applicants conduct a safety analysis adverse properties stated in the
maintenance. The overspeed and of the propeller. Safety analysis has accepted specifications of their design
overtorque limits are intended for been used to show compliance with the values. This clarification would prevent
inadvertent or maintenance use. current requirement for the majority of misinterpretations regarding the
application of material properties to the It would also add requirements that propellers consistent with those
propeller design. address control system description, required by CS–P 240.
design, construction, validation, and
Section 35.21 Variable and Reversible Subpart C—Type Substantiation
software design, for all types of
Pitch Propellers We propose to remove those
propeller mechanical, hydraulic, and
We propose to revise and rename this electronic control systems. regulations in this subpart that are
section to from ‘‘Reversible propellers’’ Our proposed § 35.23(a)(1) would redundant or no longer apply and to
to ‘‘Variable and reversible pitch ensure that the control system, modify and add sections to reflect
propellers’’ to reflect the revised operating in normal and alternative existing industry practices. We also
requirements. The revision would modes and transitions between propose to change the subpart heading
incorporate the current pitch control operating modes, performs the intended from ‘‘Tests and Inspections’’ to ‘‘Type
and indication requirements of functions throughout the declared Substantiation,’’ since subpart C applies
§ 35.23(c). It would also expand the operating conditions and flight to both testing and analysis.
current § 35.23(c) requirement to envelope. This requirement does not Section 35.31 Applicability
include all airplane installations with mandate flight test on an airplane.
reversible propellers, including Substantiation by propeller tests, rig We propose to remove the content of
reciprocating engine aircraft, because tests, airplane tests, analysis or a § 35.31 and to mark the section
the flight safety aspect of this rule combination of these would be ‘‘reserved’’ since § 35.31 is a descriptive
applies regardless of engine type. acceptable. statement about subpart C and not a
Proposed § 35.21 harmonizes with CS– Our proposed § 35.23(a)(2) would requirement.
P 210, Variable and Reversible Pitch ensure that the control system Section 35.33 General
Propellers. functionality is not adversely affected Section 35.33(a) does not adequately
Section 35.22 Feathering Propellers by declared environmental conditions. address part 21 certification
Our proposed § 35.23(a)(3) would requirements. We propose, therefore, to
We propose a new § 35.22 that will
ensure that applicants provide methods revise § 35.33(a) to identify that the
incorporate requirements for feathering
to indicate to the flight crew, if crew testing conducted in this subpart is also
propellers currently located in
action is required, that a mode change governed by the test requirements
§ 35.23(b) and in CS–P 220, ‘‘Feathering
has occurred. established in part 21.
Propellers.’’ We would incorporate the
Our proposed § 35.23(b) would add We propose a new § 35.33(b) and (c)
requirements of CS–P 220(a) into
system safety requirements in addition to harmonize with CS–P 330(b), which
paragraph (a), which would require
to those in § 35.15. Paragraph (b)(1) requires that automatic controls operate
feathering propellers be designed to
would require that no single failure or during tests. Our proposed § 35.33(b)
feather from all conditions in flight,
malfunction of electronic or electrical would adopt this requirement and add
taking into account expected wear and
components result in a hazardous that it also applies to propeller safety
leakage. It would also require that
propeller effect. Paragraph (b)(2) would systems. Also, our proposed § 35.33(b)
applicants document the feathering
address the relationship between clarifies the conditions under which
characteristics and limitations in the
failures of the linkages from the airplane some tests may be conducted without
appropriate manuals.
We would move the feathering to the propeller control, and the effects the automatic controls or safety systems.
requirements of the current § 35.23(b) to that airplane fires and overheating have For example, the applicant may have to
the new § 35.22(b). on the propeller control. Paragraph disable a primary system to test a
We propose that the requirements of (b)(3) would adopt the requirements of backup system.
CS–P 220(c) be incorporated into the current § 35.23(a). Paragraph (b)(4) CS–P 440 requires that applicants
paragraph (c). This paragraph would would address the effect of isolation address potential safety issues that may
require the applicant to design the between propellers on an airplane. occur if required testing does not
propeller to be capable of unfeathering Our proposed § 35.23(c) would add a adequately test a component during
at the minimum declared outside air requirement that all software be propeller certification. Our proposed
temperature after stabilization to a designed and implemented by a method § 35.33(c) would adopt this requirement.
steady-state temperature. approved by the FAA. It would require
that the software design be consistent Section 35.34 Inspections,
Section 35.23 Propeller Control System with the criticality of the performed Adjustments, and Repairs
We propose to revise and rename functions to minimize the existence of We propose a new § 35.34 which
§ 35.23 from ‘‘Pitch control and software errors. would revise and incorporate inspection
indication’’ to ‘‘Propeller control Our proposed § 35.23(d) would add requirements from § 35.45 and the
system’’ to reflect the revised requirements for airplane-supplied data adjustment and repairs requirements
requirements and to harmonize with so that no single failure or malfunction from § 35.47.
CS–P 230. We would retain and revise of airplane-supplied data would result We propose a new § 35.34(a) to
current paragraph (a), redesignate and in a hazardous propeller effect. harmonize with CS–P340 requirements
revise current paragraph (c) as Our proposed § 35.23(e) would add for pre-test inspections. Our proposal
§ 35.21(b), redesignate and revise requirements for airplane-supplied moves the post-test inspection
current paragraph (b) as § 35.22(b), and electrical power so that abnormalities of requirements of the existing § 35.45,
add several new paragraphs. the power supply would not result in Teardown inspection, and consolidates
Our proposed § 35.23 would address hazardous effects and would not require them here. Pre-test inspection
propeller control design requirements a declaration of the validated power establishes the condition of the test
concerning loss of normal control that supply characteristics. article prior to testing. This is
may cause hazardous overspeeding and particularly important for composite
an alternative means to override or Section 35.24 Strength structures in which damage may be
bypass the engine oil system for We propose adding a new § 35.24 to internal and not visible. If internal
propellers that use engine oil to feather. establish strength requirements for damage is present prior to the start of
the test, then the post-test inspection by special tests and special conditions Section 35.39 Endurance Test
may not be valid without knowledge of for composite blade certifications. These We propose to revise § 35.39 to
the pre-test condition of the test article. special conditions were unique for each harmonize with CS–P 390. We would
Our proposal also would relocate the propeller and effectively stated that the remove the existing 10-hour endurance
existing requirements of § 35.47 to a propeller must withstand a 4-pound block test from this section because
new § 35.34(b), since the requirements bird impact without contributing to a testing one propeller at the greatest
in § 35.47 are related to testing. major or hazardous propeller effect. The pitch and diameter for 10 hours is not
Section 35.35 Centrifugal Load Tests special tests and special conditions have adequate for a family of propellers. All
been effective for over 50 million flight current fixed-pitch propellers are being
We propose revising § 35.35 and hours, and no accidents have been tested in accordance with the current
renaming it as ‘‘Centrifugal load tests’’ attributed to bird impact against 50-hour test requirement, which
to reflect the revised requirements. composite propellers. The selection of a
Our proposal would define provides an adequate test.
4-pound bird is based on the extensive The proposed revision would delete
requirements for the entire propeller service history of blades that have been the requirement to test a propeller of the
and include consideration of material designed using the 4-pound bird greatest diameter for which certification
degradation expected in service. criteria. is requested. We are introducing this
Material degradation considerations
Section 35.37 Fatigue Limits and change because testing of the greatest
apply to all types of construction, but
Evaluation diameter is restrictive and does not
would be specifically added to address
necessarily result in an increase in
composite materials, which may absorb We propose to rename § 35.37 from airworthiness.
moisture or show some evidence of ‘‘Fatigue limit tests’’ to ‘‘Fatigue limits
delamination prior to retirement from and evaluation’’ and revise it to Section 35.40 Functional Test
service. harmonize with CS–P 370, Fatigue We propose to redesignate the current
We propose a § 35.35(a) that would § 35.41 as § 35.40 to harmonize with
Characteristics. The current requirement
require the hub, blade retention, and CS–P 400, Functional Test.
does not adequately address composite
counterweights be tested to twice the
materials and is limited to hubs, blades, Section 35.41 Overspeed and
centrifugal load for one hour. This test
and primary load-carrying metal Overtorque
is designed to assure a suitable static
components of nonmetallic blades. Our
strength margin above the maximum We propose a new overspeed and
proposed § 35.37 would expand the
rated rotational speed. overtorque requirement to harmonize
requirement to all materials and
Our proposed § 35.35(b) would with CS–P 410(a). We will rename
components (including controls system
require the transition in a composite § 35.41 ‘‘Overspeed and overtorque’’ to
components, if applicable) whose
blade from the composite material to the reflect the revised requirements. Our
failure would cause a hazardous
metallic retention be tested to twice the proposal would require that applicants
propeller effect and also include
centrifugal load for one hour. This verify the declared transient overspeed
environmental effects. It would retain
requirement would also apply to other and overtorque limits of the propeller.
the fatigue evaluation requirement in
types of construction in which a blade
paragraph (b), but would require that Section 35.42 Components of the
to retention transition occurs.
Our proposed § 35.35(c) would the fatigue evaluation be conducted on Propeller Control System
harmonize with CS–P 350 by requiring the intended airplane in accordance
We propose to combine the current
that lower energy debris for the entire with §§ 23.907 or 25.907 or on a typical
§ 35.42(a) and (b) into a single paragraph
propeller be evaluated at 159 percent of airplane. Applicants may configure a
and rename § 35.42 as ‘‘Components of
the maximum centrifugal load. The low typical airplane to develop design
the propeller control system’’ to reflect
energy debris would include spinners, criteria for the propeller in those
the revised requirements. We would
de-icing equipment, blade erosion instances when the intended airplane
expand the 1000-hour operation
shields, and other assemblies used with installation is either unavailable or
requirement to the initially declared
or attached to the propeller. unknown at propeller type certification.
inspection interval or to a minimum of
Section 35.36 Bird Impact Section 35.38 Lightning Strike 1000 hours.
We propose adding a new § 35.36 to We propose a new § 35.38, Lightning Section 35.43 Propeller Hydraulic
part 35 to address bird impact with the strike, to harmonize with CS–P 380, Components
propeller. Our proposed § 35.36 Lightning Strike. Part 35 currently has We propose to revise the current
incorporates the use of special no lightning strike requirements. Our § 35.43, Special tests, and rename it as
conditions for propellers with proposed § 35.38 requires that ‘‘Propeller hydraulic components’’ to
composite blades and would extend the composite propellers withstand a reflect the revised requirements. Our
bird impact certification requirement to lightning strike without contributing to revision would delete the duplication
all propeller designs, except fixed-pitch a major or hazardous propeller effect. It common between § 35.43 and § 21.16
wood propellers of conventional design. also reflects current practices in the and would harmonize with CS–P 430.
Section 35.36 would exclude industry and the special tests and The Propeller Harmonization Working
conventional fixed-pitch wood special conditions we issued for Group determined that it is in the best
propellers because of their satisfactory lightning strikes when composite blades interest of the public to require special
experience. The new requirement would were first introduced. conditions be issued and made available
apply to metallic blades but would Our new § 35.38 would exclude to the public when testing is required
allow compliance by experience from conventional fixed-pitch wood for unconventional features of design,
similar designs. propellers because of their satisfactory material, or construction. We are,
Industry recognized the need for bird experience. This new requirement therefore, proposing to remove the
impact requirements when composite would apply to metallic blades but special tests requirement of § 35.43.
blades were introduced in the 1970s. allow compliance by experience from Our proposed § 35.43 would add
The safety issues have been addressed similar designs. requirements for testing propeller
components that contain hydraulic Economic Assessment, Regulatory part 35 and the European propeller
pressure. These tests have been Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact requirements CS–P are almost identical.
previously required by special condition Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates CS–P is now an official rule of a foreign
or special tests under the current Assessment regulatory agency while this is a
§ 35.43. This proposal adopts the test Changes to Federal regulations must proposed rule. To export propellers to
procedures that are being conducted on undergo several economic analyses. Europe, U.S. manufacturers now must
applicable components. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that meet the European requirements. Before
each Federal agency shall propose or Europe made these requirements,
Section 35.45 Reserved
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned industry provided us with a cost
We propose to revise § 35.45 by estimate of $31 million over a 25-year
moving the teardown inspection determination that the benefits of the
intended regulation justify its costs. analysis period for them to be in
requirements to § 35.34, as noted above, compliance with the FAA proposed
and to mark § 35.45 ‘‘reserved.’’ Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act
propeller requirements which would
of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires
Section 35.47 Propeller Adjustments have codified existing special tests and
agencies to analyze the economic
and Parts Replacements conditions. But as manufacturers are
impact of regulatory changes on small
already in compliance with these now
We propose to revise § 35.47 by entities. Third, the Trade Agreements
harmonized proposed requirements,
moving the propeller adjustment and Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies
there are no additional compliance
repair requirements to § 35.34, as noted from setting standards that create
costs.
above, and to mark § 35.47 ‘‘Reserved.’’ unnecessary obstacles to the foreign This proposed rule has only one
commerce of the United States. In regulation stricter than EASA’s CS–P.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices developing U.S. standards, this Trade The FAA proposes to extend the current
Authority for This Rulemaking Act also requires agencies to consider special condition 4-pound bird strike
Title 49 of the U.S. Code specifies the international standards and, where test for composite propeller blades. CS–
FAA’s authority to issue rules on appropriate, to be the basis of U.S. P requires newly certificated propellers
aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, standards. Fourth, the Unfunded to withstand a 4-pound bird strike for
describes the authority of the FAA Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. equivalent part 25 airplanes. However,
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a CS–P requires newly certificated
Programs, describes in more detail the written assessment of the costs, benefits, propellers to withstand a 2.8-pound bird
scope of the Agency’s authority. and other effects of proposed or final strike for equivalent part 23 commuter
We are issuing this rulemaking under rules that include a Federal mandate airplanes and does not require a bird
the authority described in Subtitle VII, likely to result in the expenditure by strike test for other equivalent part 23
Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, State, local, or tribal governments, in the airplanes. U. S. propeller manufacturers
‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that aggregate, or by the private sector, of provided us with their estimated costs
section, Congress charges the FAA with $100 million or more annually (adjusted to meet the proposed 4-pound
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in for inflation with base year of 1995). requirement. Over a 25-year analysis
air commerce by prescribing regulations This portion of the preamble period (based on the operational life of
for practices, methods, and procedures summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the a propeller) we estimate the total cost
the Administrator finds necessary for economic impacts of this proposed rule. for 635 future propellers to be $458,000
safety in air commerce, including The Department of Transportation or $213,000 in present value (7 percent
minimum safety standards for aircraft Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies discount rate). The FAA considers this
engines. This proposed rule is within and procedures for simplification, cost to be minimal.
the scope of that authority because it analysis, and review of regulations. If The benefits from this higher bird-
updates the existing regulations for the expected cost impact is so minimal strike requirement are an expected
airplane propellers. that a proposal does not warrant a full continuity of over fifty million flight
evaluation, this order permits a hours with no accidents attributed to
Paperwork Reduction Act statement to that effect. The basis for the bird impacts against composite
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 minimal impact must be included in the propellers despite many bird strikes.
(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the preamble, if a full regulatory evaluation Between 1990 and 2004, there have
FAA consider the impact of paperwork of the cost and benefits is not prepared. been over 150 bird strikes to part 23
and other information collection Such a determination has been made for propellers (see the FAA National
burdens imposed on the public. We this rule. The reasoning for that Wildlife Strike Database, Version 6.0,
have determined that there are no determination follows. February 26, 2005; available online at
current new information collection To a great extent this proposed rule http://wildlife.pr.erau.edu/public/
requirements associated with this would require propeller manufacturers index1.html).
proposed rule. to certificate future production We, therefore, have determined that
propellers for sale in the United States this rulemaking action is not a
International Compatibility to the same European standards that ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as
In keeping with U.S. obligations these firms already meet. The European defined in section 3(f) of Executive
under the Convention on International Aviation Safety Agency, the European Order 12866, and is not ‘‘significant’’ as
Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to equivalent to the FAA, became defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies
comply with International Civil responsible for certification of aircraft, and Procedures. In addition, the FAA
Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards engines, parts and appliances on has determined that this rulemaking
and Recommended Practices to the September 28, 2003 by Commission action: (1) Would not have a significant
maximum extent practicable. The FAA Regulation (EC) 1702/2003. Because the economic impact on a substantial
has reviewed the corresponding ICAO U.S. and European effort to have number of small entities; (2) would be
Standards and Recommended Practices common certification propeller in compliance with the Trade
and has identified no differences with regulations was almost completed when Agreements Act; and (3) would not
these proposed regulations. EASA became operational, the proposed impose an unfunded mandate on state,
local, or tribal governments, or on the • Describe the alternatives E. Overlapping, Duplicative, or

private sector. considered. Conflicting Federal Rules
Regulatory Flexibility Determination • Conduct a disproportionality The FAA is unaware that the proposal
analysis. would overlap, duplicate, or conflict
A. Introduction with existing Federal Rules.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 B. Reasons for This Proposal
(RFA) establishes ‘‘* * * as a principle F. Estimated Number of Small Firms
The FAA proposes to revise the Potentially Impacted
of regulatory issuance that agencies airworthiness standards for the issuance
shall endeavor, consistent with the Under the RFA, the FAA must
of original and amended type
objective of the rule and of applicable determine whether or not a proposal
certificates for airplane propellers. The significantly affects a substantial
statutes, to fit regulatory and
existing propeller requirements do not number of small entities. This
informational requirements to the scale
of the business, organizations, and adequately address the technological determination is typically based on
governmental jurisdictions subject to advances of the past 20 years. The small entity size and cost thresholds
regulation.’’ To achieve that principle, proposed standards would address the that vary depending on the affected
the RFA requires agencies to solicit and current advances in technology and industry. The Small Business
consider flexible regulatory proposals would harmonize the FAA requirements Administration (SBA) uses the NAICS
and to explain the rationale for their with the existing requirements of (North American Industry Classification
actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of Certification Specifications for System) 2002 to determine size
small entities, including small Propellers of the EASA. This proposal standards for small businesses. There is
businesses, not-for-profit organizations would establish nearly uniform no entry in the NAICS 2002 for
and small governmental jurisdictions. standards for aircraft propellers certified propeller manufacturers. However, the
Agencies must perform a review to by the United States under FAA NAICS 2002 does list under Sectors 31–
determine whether a proposed or final standards and by European countries 33, Manufacturing, Subsector 336,
rule would have a ‘‘significant economic under EASA standards, thereby Transportation Equipment
impact on a substantial number of small simplifying airworthiness approvals for Manufacturing, which in turn lists the
entities.’’ If the determination is that it import and export products. following numbers and number of
will, the agency must prepare a C. Statement of the Legal Basis and employees as shown in the following
regulatory flexibility analysis as table:
Objectives
described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that Under Title 49 of the U. S. Code, the NAICS Description Number of
a proposed or final rule is not expected 2002 No. employees
FAA Administrator is required to
to have a significant economic impact consider the following matters, among 336411 .. Aircraft Manufac- 1,500
on a substantial number of small others, as being in the public interest: turing.
entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 RFA Assigning, maintaining, and enhancing 336412 .. Aircraft Engine and 1,000
provides that the head of the agency safety and security as the highest Engine Parts
may so certify and a regulatory priorities in air commerce. (See 49 Manufacturing.
flexibility analysis is not required. The U.S.C. 40101(d)(1).). Additionally, it is 336413 .. Other Aircraft Part 1,000
certification must include a statement the FAA Administrator’s statutory duty and Auxiliary
providing the factual basis for this Equipment Man-
to carry out his or her responsibilities ufacturing.
determination, and the reasoning should ‘‘in a way that best tends to reduce or
be clear. eliminate the possibility or recurrence
The purpose of this Initial Regulatory Propeller manufacturing could be
of accidents in air transportation.’’ (See included in #336412, Aircraft Engine
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) is to ensure
49 U.S.C. 44701(c).) and Aircraft Parts Manufacturing; or
that the agency has considered all
reasonable regulatory alternatives that Accordingly, this proposal would #336413, Other Aircraft Parts and
would minimize the proposal’s amend Title 14 of the Code of Federal Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing.
economic burdens for affected small Regulations to update the propeller Both these categories use 1,000
entities, while achieving its safety certification requirements to reflect employees to define a small business.
objectives. technological changes in the last 10 to Therefore, the FAA defines a small
Under Section 603 of the RFA, the 20 years, reduce the need for and use of business in the variable pitch propeller
analysis must address: special tests and conditions for manufacturing industry as a business
• Description of reasons the agency is propeller certification, and to harmonize with 1,000 or less employees. In
considering the action. U.S. propeller certification requirements accordance with SBA usage, this
• Statement of the legal basis and with European propeller certification number applies to the ultimate
objectives for the proposal. requirements. ownership of the company.
• Description of the recordkeeping In 2004, the American airplane
and other compliance requirements of D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping variable pitch propeller industry
the proposal. and Other Requirements consisted of three firms. These firms
• All federal rules that may duplicate, were Hamilton Sundstrand, Hartzell,
overlap, or conflict with the proposal. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
and McCauley. Hamilton Sundstrand is
• Description and an estimated (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the
a subsidiary of United Technologies that
number of small entities to which the FAA consider the impact of paperwork
employed approximately 210,000
proposal would apply. and other information collection
people and had annual revenues of
• Analysis of small firms’ ability to burdens imposed on the public. We
approximately $37 billion in 2004.1
afford the proposal. have determined that there are no
• Conduct a competitive analysis. current new information collection 1 _, United Technologies Corporation—Our
• Estimation of the potential for requirements associated with this Profile, http://www.utc.com/profile/profile/
business closures. proposed rule. index.htm, 08/26/2005.
McCauley Propeller Systems is owned G. Cost and Affordability for Small that do not release their financial
by Cessna, which, in turn, is owned by Entities statements. Therefore, this source
Textron, Inc. Textron employed some provides a range estimate of firms such
44,000 people and had annual revenues The 25 year present value estimate of as Hartzell. The annual revenue of
of some $10 billion in 2004.2 Hartzell the costs of the proposal is $213,000 or Hartzell Propellers was estimated to be
Propeller, Inc. employed 295 employees $18,000 annually. Assuming that this between $20 and $50 million annually,
in 2003 and had annual revenues cost is distributed evenly across the or an average of $37.5 million, by
between $20 and $50 million in 2002.3 three firms in the American propeller ‘‘Reference USA, 2003.’’
Using the above criteria, Hartzell is a industry, this results in a cost of $6,000 A comparison of the annual costs of
small business and Hamilton per company per year. the proposal per firm to the annual
Sundstrand and McCauley are not small Hartzell Propeller does not release its revenues of a firm provides a rough
businesses. Because only one company annual financial statements. The estimate of the burden the rule causes
is a small business, this proposal would reference source ‘‘Reference, USA, for a firm. Applying the above technique
not affect a substantial number of small 2003,’’ uses a model to estimate the to the small propeller entity yields the
entities. annual revenues of privately held firms following results:
Percent of
Annual cost Annual
Company annual
of rule revenue revenue
Hartzell ......................................................................................................................................... $6,000 $37,500,000 0.016
Given the estimated cost and revenue, 2. Extend compliance deadline for solicits comments regarding this
the FAA believes that the cost would small entities. determination.
have only a minor impact on the small 3. Establish lesser technical
firm. requirements for small entities. Trade Impact Assessment
The FAA concludes that the option to The Trade Agreements Act of 1979
H. Competitive Analysis
exclude small entities from all the (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits Federal
As the cost information is at the requirements of the proposal is not
company level and the propeller firms agencies from establishing any
justified. If small entities were excluded
do not all produce the same kind of standards or engaging in related
the intended safety improvements
propeller, the FAA does not have activities that create unnecessary
would be forfeited.
sufficient information to analyze the The FAA also considered options that obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
competitive impact of this proposal. would lengthen the compliance period United States. Legitimate domestic
for small operators. The FAA believes objectives, such as safety, are not
I. Disproportionality Analysis
that the requirement, as proposed, considered unnecessary obstacles. The
Relative to larger propeller would place a modest burden on small statute also requires consideration of
manufacturers, smaller propeller entities with respect to time constraints. international standards and, where
manufacturers are more likely to be Small entities would have sufficient appropriate, that they be the basis for
disproportionately impacted by this time from the effective date of the rule U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed
rulemaking because the larger the potential effect of this proposed rule
to complete implementation work.
manufacturers have relatively higher and determined that it will accept
Further time extensions would only
fixed costs than the smaller
provide modest cost savings and leave European standards as the basis for U.S.
manufacturers. These fixed costs are not
the system safety at risk. regulations.
impacted by the costs that would be
The FAA considered establishing
imposed by this proposal. The larger Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
lesser technical requirements for small
propeller manufacturers are expected to
entities. However, the FAA believes that Title II of the Unfunded Mandate
incur costs which are a relatively
this would result in a lower level of Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4)
smaller percentage of their annual
safety than would the implementation requires each Federal agency to prepare
revenues than those of smaller propeller
of the proposal. The FAA believes that
manufacturers. a written statement assessing the effects
the greatest safety benefits would come
J. Business Closure Analysis of any Federal mandate in a proposed or
from a common certification rule for all
manufacturers. final agency rule that may result in an
The one small business entity has a expenditure of $100 million or more
relatively low compliance cost per The FAA concludes that the current
proposal is the preferred alternative (adjusted annually for inflation with the
annual revenue ratio. We believe that base year 1995) in any one year by State,
this minor compliance cost would not because the current proposal provides
for a common certification system for all local, and tribal governments, in the
cause firms to face a business closure.
propeller manufacturers. aggregate, or by the private sector. The
The FAA does not have sufficient
information to provide a more refined In conclusion, as only one small FAA currently uses an inflation-
estimate of a potential business closure. entity would be affected there are not a adjusted value of $128.1 million in lieu
substantial number of small entities. of $100 million.
K. Analysis of Alternatives Therefore, the FAA certifies that this This proposed rule does not contain
The agency considered three rule will not have a significant such a mandate. The requirements of
alternatives to the proposal. These were: economic impact on a substantial Title II do not apply.
1. Exclude small entities. number of small entities. The FAA
2 www.textron.com/about/company/index.jsp 3 _, Reference USA, Version 2003.1, http:// detail.asp?si=97350308854484
(Accessed 08/26/2005). www.referenceusa.com/bd/ &abinumber=402250104&t..., 11/25/02.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism § 23.905 Propellers. 5. Revise § 25.901(b)(1)(i) to read as

The FAA has analyzed this proposed * * * * * follows:
rule under the principles and criteria of (d) The propeller blade pitch control
§ 25.901 Installation.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We system must meet the requirements of
§§ 35.21, 35.23, 35.42 and 35.43 of this * * * * *
determined that this action would not (b) * * *
have a substantial direct effect on the chapter.
(1) * * *
States, on the relationship between the * * * * * (i) The installation instructions
national Government and the States, or 3. Revise § 23.907 to read as follows: provided under §§ 33.5 and 35.3 of this
on the distribution of power and § 23.907 Propeller vibration and fatigue. chapter; and
responsibilities among the various * * * * *
Sections 23.907(a), (b), and (c) do not
levels of government. Therefore, we 6. Revise § 25.905(c) to read as
apply to fixed-pitch wood propellers of
determined that this proposed follows:
conventional design.
rulemaking would not have federalism
(a) The applicant must determine the
implications. § 25.905 Propellers.
magnitude of the propeller vibration
Environmental Analysis stresses or loads, including any stress * * * * *
peaks and resonant conditions, (c) The propeller blade pitch control
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA system must meet the requirements of
throughout the operational envelope of
actions that are categorically excluded §§ 35.21, 35.23, 35.42 and 35.43 of this
the airplane by either:
from preparation of an environmental chapter.
(1) Measurement of stresses or loads
assessment or environmental impact * * * * *
through direct testing or analysis based
statement under the National 7. Revise § 25.907 to read as follows:
on direct testing of the propeller on the
Environmental Policy Act in the
airplane and engine installation for
absence of extraordinary circumstances. § 25.907 Propeller vibration.
which approval is sought; or
The FAA has determined that this (2) Comparison of the propeller to Section 25.907 does not apply to
proposed rule qualifies for the similar propellers installed on similar fixed-pitch wood propellers of
categorical exclusion identified in airplane installations for which these conventional design.
Chapter 3, paragraph 312d and involves measurements have been made. (a) The applicant must determine the
no extraordinary circumstances. (b) The applicant must demonstrate magnitude of the propeller vibration
by tests, analysis based on tests, or stresses or loads, including any stress
Regulations that Significantly Affect
previous experience on similar designs peaks and resonant conditions,
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
that the propeller does not experience throughout the operational envelope of
The FAA has analyzed this NPRM the airplane by either:
harmful effects of flutter throughout the
under Executive Order 13211, Actions (1) Measurement of stresses or loads
operational envelope of the airplane.
Concerning Regulations that (c) The applicant must perform an through direct testing or analysis based
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, evaluation of the propeller to show that on direct testing of the propeller on the
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We failure due to fatigue will be avoided airplane and engine installation for
have determined that it is not a throughout the operational life of the which approval is sought; or
‘‘significant energy action’’ under the propeller using the fatigue and (2) Comparison of the propeller to
executive order because it is not a structural data obtained in accordance similar propellers installed on similar
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under with part 35 and the vibration data airplane installations for which these
Executive Order 12866, and it is not obtained from compliance with measurements have been made.
likely to have a significant adverse effect paragraph (a) of this section. For the (b) The applicant must demonstrate
on the supply, distribution, or use of purpose of this paragraph, the propeller by tests, analysis based on tests, or
energy. includes the hub, blades, blade previous experience on similar designs
retention component and any other that the propeller does not experience
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 23, 25,
propeller component whose failure due harmful effects of flutter throughout the
33 and 35
to fatigue could be catastrophic to the operational envelope of the airplane.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation (c) The applicant must perform an
airplane. This evaluation must include:
safety, Safety. evaluation of the propeller to show that
(1) The intended loading spectra
including all reasonably foreseeable failure due to fatigue will be avoided
The Proposed Amendment
propeller vibration and cyclic load throughout the operational life of the
In consideration of the foregoing, the propeller using the fatigue and
patterns, identified emergency
Federal Aviation Administration structural data obtained in accordance
conditions, allowable overspeeds and
proposes to amend parts 23, 25, 33, and with part 35 and the vibration data
overtorques, and the effects of
35 of Title 14 Code of Federal obtained from compliance with
temperatures and humidity expected in
Regulations as follows: paragraph (a) of this section. For the
service.
(2) The effects of airplane and purpose of this paragraph, the propeller
PART 23—AIRWORTHINESS includes the hub, blades, blade
STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, propeller operating and airworthiness
limitations. retention component and any other
ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER propeller component whose failure due
CATEGORY AIRPLANES to fatigue could be catastrophic to the
PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS
1. The authority citation for part 23 STANDARDS: TRANSPORT airplane. This evaluation must include:
continues to read as follows: CATEGORY AIRPLANES (1) The intended loading spectra
including all reasonably foreseeable
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 4. The authority citation for part 25 propeller vibration and cyclic load
44702, 44704. continues to read as follows: patterns, identified emergency
2. Revise § 23.905(d) to read as Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– conditions, allowable overspeeds and
follows: 44702, 44704. overtorques, and the effects of
temperatures and humidity expected in 13. Revise § 35.3 to read as follows: applicant, that make it unsafe for the
service. uses for which certification is requested.
(2) The effects of airplane and § 35.3 Instructions for propeller (b) If a failure occurs during a
installation and operation. certification test, the applicant must
propeller operating and airworthiness
limitations. The applicant must provide determine the cause and assess the
instructions that are approved by the effect on the airworthiness of the
PART 33—AIRWORTHINESS Administrator. Those approved propeller. The applicant must make
STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES instructions must contain: changes to the design and conduct
(a) Instructions for installing the additional tests that the Administrator
8. The authority citation for part 33 propeller, which: finds necessary to establish the
continues to read as follows: (1) Include a description of the airworthiness of the propeller.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– operational modes of the propeller
44702, 44704. control system and functional interface Subpart B—Design and Construction
9. Revise § 33.19(b) to read as follows: of the control system with the airplane
§ 35.11 [Removed]
and engine systems;
§ 33.19 Durability. (2) Specify the physical and 16. Remove and reserve § 35.11.
* * * * * functional interfaces with the airplane, § 35.13 [Removed]
(b) Each component of the propeller airplane equipment and engine; 17. Remove and reserve § 35.13.
blade pitch control system which is a (3) Define the limiting conditions on 18. Revise § 35.15 to read as follows:
part of the engine type design must meet the interfaces from paragraph (a)(2) of
the requirements of §§ 35.21, 35.23, this section; § 35.15 Safety analysis.
35.42 and 35.43 of this chapter. (4) List the limitations established (a)(1) The applicant must analyze the
* * * * * under § 35.5; propeller system to assess the likely
(5) Define the hydraulic fluids consequences of all failures that can
PART 35—AIRWORTHINESS approved for use with the propeller, reasonably be expected to occur. This
STANDARDS: PROPELLERS including grade and specification, analysis will take into account, if
related operating pressure, and filtration applicable:
10. The authority citation for part 35 levels; and (i) The propeller system in a typical
continues to read as follows: (6) State the assumptions made to installation. When the analysis depends
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– comply with the requirements of this on representative components, assumed
44702, 44704. part. interfaces, or assumed installed
(b) Instructions for operating the conditions, the assumptions must be
Subpart A—General propeller which must specify all stated in the analysis.
11. In § 35.1, add paragraphs (c) and procedures necessary for operating the (ii) Consequential secondary failures
(d) to read as follows: propeller within the limitations of the and dormant failures.
propeller type design. (iii) Multiple failures referred to in
§ 35.1 Applicability. 14. Revise § 35.5 to read as follows: paragraph (d) of this section, or that
* * * * * result in the hazardous propeller effects
(c) An applicant is eligible for a § 35.5 Propeller ratings and operating defined in paragraph (g)(1) of this
propeller type certificate and changes to limitations. section.
those certificates after demonstrating (a) Propeller ratings and operating (2) The applicant must summarize
compliance with subparts A, B and C of limitations must: those failures that could result in major
this part. However, the propeller may (1) Be established by the applicant propeller effects or hazardous propeller
not be installed on an airplane unless and approved by the Administrator. effects defined in paragraph (g) of this
the applicant has shown compliance (2) Be included directly or by section, and estimate the probability of
with either § 23.907 or § 25.907, as reference in the propeller type occurrence of those effects.
applicable, or compliance is not certificate data sheet, as specified in (3) The applicant must show that
required for installation on that § 21.41 of this chapter. hazardous propeller effects are not
airplane. (3) Be based on the operating predicted to occur at a rate in excess of
(d) For the purposes of this part, the conditions demonstrated during the that defined as extremely remote
propeller consists of those components tests required by this part as well as any (probability of 10¥7 or less per propeller
listed in the type design, and the other information the Administrator flight hour). Since the estimated
propeller system consists of the requires as necessary for the safe probability for individual failures may
propeller plus all the components operation of the propeller. be insufficiently precise to enable the
necessary for its functioning, but not (b) Propeller ratings and operating applicant to assess the total rate for
necessarily included in the propeller limitations must be established for the hazardous propeller effects, compliance
type design. following, as applicable: may be shown by demonstrating that the
12. Add § 35.2 to read as follows: (1) Power and rotational speed for: probability of a hazardous propeller
(i) Takeoff. effect arising from an individual failure
§ 35.2 Propeller configuration and (ii) Maximum continuous. can be predicted to be not greater than
identification. (iii) If requested by the applicant, 10¥8 per propeller flight hour. In
(a) The applicant must provide a list other ratings may also be established. dealing with probabilities of this low
of all the components, including (2) Overspeed and overtorque limits. order of magnitude, absolute proof is
references to the relevant drawings and 15. Add § 35.7 to read as follows: not possible and reliance must be
software design data, that define the placed on engineering judgment and
type design of the propeller to be § 35.7 Features and characteristics. previous experience combined with
approved under § 21.31. (a) The propeller must not have sound design and test philosophies.
(b) The propeller identification must features or characteristics, revealed by (4) It must be shown that major
comply with §§ 45.11 and 45.14. any test or analysis or known to the propeller effects are not predicted to
occur at a rate in excess of that defined (f) If applicable, the safety analysis need not be considered if the occurrence
as remote (probability of 10¥5 or less must include, but not be limited to, of such a failure is shown to be
per propeller flight hour). assessment of indicating equipment, extremely remote under § 35.15(c).
(b) If significant doubt exists as to the manual and automatic controls, (b) For propellers incorporating a
effects of failures or likely combination governors and propeller control method to select blade pitch below the
of failures, the Administrator may systems, synchrophasers, synchronizers, in-flight low pitch position, provisions
require assumptions used in the and propeller thrust reversal systems. must be made to sense and indicate to
analysis to be verified by test. (g) Unless otherwise approved by the the flight crew that the propeller blades
(c) The primary failures of certain Administrator and stated in the safety are below that position by an amount
single elements (for example, blades) analysis, the following failure defined in the installation manual. The
cannot be sensibly estimated in definitions apply to compliance with method for sensing and indicating the
numerical terms. If the failure of such part 35. propeller blade must be such that its
elements is likely to result in hazardous (1) The following are regarded as failure does not affect the control of the
propeller effects, then compliance may hazardous propeller effects: propeller.
be shown by reliance on the prescribed (i) A significant overspeed of the 21. Add § 35.22 to read as follows:
integrity requirements of this part. propeller. § 35.22 Feathering propellers.
These instances must be stated in the (ii) The development of excessive
(a) Feathering propellers must be
safety analysis. drag.
designed to feather from all conditions
(d) If reliance is placed on a safety (iii) A significant thrust in the
in flight, taking into account expected
system to prevent a failure progressing opposite direction to that commanded wear and leakage. Feathering and
to hazardous propeller effects, the by the pilot. unfeathering limitations must be
possibility of a safety system failure in (iv) The release of the propeller or any documented in the appropriate
combination with a basic propeller major portion of the propeller. manuals.
failure must be included in the analysis. (v) A failure that results in excessive (b) Propeller pitch control systems
Such a safety system may include safety unbalance. that use engine oil to feather must
devices, instrumentation, early warning (vi) The unintended movement of the incorporate a method to allow the
devices, maintenance checks, and other propeller blades below the established propeller to feather if the engine oil
similar equipment or procedures. If minimum in-flight low-pitch position. system fails.
items of the safety system are outside (2) The following are regarded as (c) Feathering propellers must be
the control of the propeller major propeller effects for variable pitch designed to be capable of unfeathering
manufacturer, the assumptions of the propellers: at the minimum declared outside air
safety analysis with respect to the (i) An inability to feather the propeller temperature after stabilization to a
reliability of these parts must be clearly for feathering propellers. steady-state temperature.
stated in the analysis and identified in (ii) An inability to change propeller 22. Revise § 35.23 to read as follows:
the propeller installation and operation pitch when commanded.
(iii) A significant uncommanded § 35.23 Propeller control system.
instructions required under § 35.3.
(e) If the safety analysis depends on change in pitch. The requirements of this section
one or more of the following items, (iv) A significant uncontrollable apply to any system or component that
those items must be identified in the torque or speed fluctuation. controls, limits or monitors propeller
analysis and appropriately 19. Revise § 35.17 to read as follows: functions.
(a) The propeller control system must
substantiated. § 35.17 Materials and manufacturing be designed, constructed and validated
(1) Maintenance actions being carried methods. to show that:
out at stated intervals. This includes the (a) The suitability and durability of (1) The propeller control system,
verification of the serviceability of items materials used in the propeller must: operating in normal and alternative
that could fail in a latent manner. When (1) Be established on the basis of operating modes and in transition
necessary to prevent hazardous experience, tests, or both. between operating modes, performs the
propeller effects, these maintenance (2) Account for environmental functions defined by the applicant
actions and intervals must be published conditions expected in service. throughout the declared operating
in the instructions for continued (b) All materials and manufacturing conditions and flight envelope.
airworthiness required under § 35.4 of methods must conform to specifications (2) The propeller control system
this part. Additionally, if errors in acceptable to the Administrator. functionality is not adversely affected
maintenance of the propeller system (c) The design values of properties of by the declared environmental
could lead to hazardous propeller materials must be suitably related to the conditions, including temperature,
effects, the appropriate procedures must most adverse properties stated in the electromagnetic interference (EMI), high
be included in the relevant propeller material specification. intensity radiated fields (HIRF) and
manuals. 20. Revise § 35.21 to read as follows: lightning. The environmental limits to
(2) Verification of the satisfactory which the system has been satisfactorily
functioning of safety or other devices at § 35.21 Variable and reversible pitch validated must be documented in the
pre-flight or other stated periods. The propellers. appropriate propeller manuals.
details of this satisfactory functioning (a) No single failure or malfunction in (3) A method is provided to indicate
must be published in the appropriate the propeller system will result in that an operating mode change has
manual. unintended travel of the propeller occurred if flight crew action is

(3) The provisions of specific blades to a position below the in-flight required. In such an event, operating
instrumentation not otherwise required. low-pitch position. The extent of any instructions must be provided in the
Such instrumentation must be intended travel below the in-flight low- appropriate manuals.
published in the appropriate pitch position must be documented by (b) The propeller control system must
documentation. the applicant in the appropriate be designed and constructed so that, in
(4) A fatigue assessment. manuals. Failure of structural elements addition to compliance with § 35.15:
(1) No single failure or malfunction of (c) Any systems or components that 28. Add § 35.36 to read as follows:
electrical or electronic components in cannot be adequately substantiated by
the control system results in a the applicant to the requirements of this § 35.36 Bird impact.
hazardous propeller effect. part are required to undergo additional The applicant must demonstrate, by
(2) Failures or malfunctions directly tests or analysis to demonstrate that the tests or analysis based on tests or
affecting the propeller control system in systems or components are able to experience on similar designs, that the
a typical airplane, such as structural perform their intended functions in all propeller can withstand the impact of a
failures of attachments to the control, declared environmental and operating 4-pound bird at the critical location(s)
fire, or overheat, do not lead to a conditions. and critical flight condition(s) of a
hazardous propeller effect. 26. Revise § 35.34 to read as follows: typical installation without causing a
(3) The loss of normal propeller pitch major or hazardous propeller effect.
§ 35.34 Inspections, adjustments and This section does not apply to fixed-
control does not cause a hazardous
repairs. pitch wood propellers of conventional
propeller effect under the intended
operating conditions. (a) Before and after conducting the design.
(4) The failure or corruption of data or tests prescribed in this part, the test 29. Revise § 35.37 to read as follows:
signals shared across propellers does article must be subjected to an
inspection, and a record must be made § 35.37 Fatigue limits and evaluation.
not cause a hazardous propeller effect. This section does not apply to fixed-
(c) Electronic propeller control system of all the relevant parameters,
calibrations and settings. pitch wood propellers of conventional
imbedded software must be designed design.
and implemented by a method approved (b) During all tests, only servicing and
minor repairs are permitted. If major (a) Fatigue limits must be established
by the Administrator that is consistent by tests, or analysis based on tests, for
with the criticality of the performed repairs or part replacement is required,
the Administrator must approve the propeller:
functions and that minimizes the (1) Hubs;
existence of software errors. repair or part replacement prior to
implementation and may require (2) Blades;
(d) The propeller control system must (3) Blade retention components;
be designed and constructed so that the additional testing. Any unscheduled
(4) Components which are affected by
failure or corruption of airplane- repair or action on the test article must
fatigue loads and which are shown
supplied data does not result in be recorded and reported.
under § 35.15 to have a fatigue failure
hazardous propeller effects. 27. Revise § 35.35 to read as follows:
mode leading to hazardous propeller
(e) The propeller control system must § 35.35 Centrifugal load tests. effects.
be designed and constructed so that the The applicant must demonstrate that (b) The fatigue limits must take into
loss, interruption or abnormal a propeller complies with paragraphs account:
characteristic of airplane-supplied (a), (b) and (c) of this section without (1) All known and reasonably
electrical power does not result in evidence of failure, malfunction, or foreseeable vibration and cyclic load
hazardous propeller effects. The power permanent deformation that would patterns that are expected in service;
quality requirements must be described result in a major or hazardous propeller and
in the appropriate manuals. effect. When the propeller could be (2) Expected service deterioration,
23. Add § 35.24 to read as follows: sensitive to environmental degradation variations in material properties,
in service, this must be considered. This manufacturing variations, and
§ 35.24 Strength. environmental effects.
section does not apply to fixed-pitch
The maximum stresses developed in (c) A fatigue evaluation of the
wood or fixed-pitch metal propellers of
the propeller must not exceed values propeller must be conducted to show
conventional design.
acceptable to the Administrator that hazardous propeller effects due to
(a) The hub, blade retention system,
considering the particular form of fatigue will be avoided throughout the
and counterweights must be tested for a
construction and the most severe intended operational life of the
period of one hour to a load equivalent
operating conditions. Due consideration propeller on either:
to twice the maximum centrifugal load
must be given to the effects of any (1) The intended airplane by
to which the propeller would be
residual stresses. complying with § 23.907 or § 25.907, as
subjected during operation at the
applicable; or
Subpart C—Type Substantiation maximum rated rotational speed.
(2) A typical airplane.
(b) Blade features associated with
30. Add § 35.38 to read as follows:
§ 35.31 [Removed] transitions to the retention system (for
24. Remove and reserve § 35.31. example, a composite blade bonded to § 35.38 Lightning strike.
25. Revise § 35.33 to read as follows: a metallic retention) must be tested The applicant must demonstrate, by
either during the test of § 35.35(a) or in tests, analysis based on tests, or
§ 35.33 General. a separate component test. experience on similar designs, that the
(a) Each applicant must furnish test (c) Components used with or attached propeller can withstand a lightning
article(s) and suitable testing facilities, to the propeller (for example, spinners, strike without causing a major or
including equipment and competent de-icing equipment, and blade erosion hazardous propeller effect. The limit to
personnel, and conduct the required shields) must be subjected to a load which the propeller has been qualified
tests in accordance with part 21. equivalent to 159 percent of the must be documented in the appropriate
(b) All automatic controls and safety maximum centrifugal load to which the manuals. This section does not apply to
systems must be in operation unless it component would be subjected during fixed-pitch wood propellers of
is accepted by the Administrator as operation at the maximum rated conventional design.
impossible or not required because of rotational speed. This must be 31. Revise § 35.39 to read as follows:
the nature of the test. If needed for performed by either:
substantiation, the applicant may test a (1) Testing at the required load for a § 35.39 Endurance test.
different propeller configuration if this period of 30 minutes; or Endurance tests on the propeller
does not constitute a less severe test. (2) Analysis based on test. system must be made on a
representative engine in accordance across the range of pitch and rotational cause a hazardous propeller effect
with paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, speed. demonstrate structural integrity by:
as applicable, without evidence of (c) Feathering propellers. Fifty cycles (a) A proof pressure test to 1.5 times
failure or malfunction. of feather and unfeather operation must the maximum operating pressure for one
(a) Fixed-pitch and ground adjustable- be made. minute without permanent deformation
pitch propellers must be subjected to (d) Reversible-pitch propellers. Two or leakage that would prevent
one of the following tests: hundred complete cycles of control performance of the intended function.
(1) A 50-hour flight test in level flight must be made from lowest normal pitch (b) A burst pressure test to 2.0 times
or in climb. The propeller must be to maximum reverse pitch. During each the maximum operating pressure for one
operated at takeoff power and rated cycle, the propeller must be run for 30 minute without failure. Leakage is
rotational speed during at least five seconds at the maximum power and permitted and seals may be excluded
hours of this flight test, and at not less rotational speed selected by the from the test.
than 90 percent of the rated rotational applicant for maximum reverse pitch.
speed for the remainder of the 50 hours. § 35.45 [Removed]
(e) An analysis based on tests of
(2) A 50-hour ground test at takeoff propellers of similar design may be used 34. Remove and reserve § 35.45.
power and rated rotational speed. in place of the tests of § 35.40. § 35.47 [Removed]
(b) Variable-pitch propellers must be 33. Revise §§ 35.41, 35.42, and 35.43
subjected to one of the following tests: to read as follows: 35. Remove and reserve § 35.47.
(1) A 110-hour endurance test that Issued in Washington, DC, on March 26,
must include the following conditions: § 35.41 Overspeed and overtorque. 2007.
(i) Five hours at takeoff power and (a) When the applicant seeks approval John J. Hickey,
rotational speed and thirty 10-minute of a transient maximum propeller Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
cycles composed of: overspeed, the applicant must [FR Doc. E7–6193 Filed 4–10–07; 8:45 am]
(A) Acceleration from idle, demonstrate that the propeller is BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
(B) Five minutes at takeoff power and capable of further operation without
rotational speed, maintenance action at the maximum
(C) Deceleration, and propeller overspeed condition. This DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(D) Five minutes at idle. may be accomplished by:
(ii) Fifty hours at maximum (1) Performance of 20 runs, each of 30 Federal Aviation Administration
continuous power and rotational speed, seconds duration, at the maximum
(iii) Fifty hours, consisting of ten 5- propeller overspeed condition; or 14 CFR Part 33
hour cycles composed of: (2) Analysis based on test or service
[Docket No. FAA–2007–27311; Notice No.
(A) Five accelerations and experience. 07–03]
decelerations between idle, takeoff (b) When the applicant seeks approval
power and rotational speed; of a transient maximum propeller RIN 2120–AI94
(B) Four and one-half hours at overtorque, the applicant must
approximately even incremental demonstrate that the propeller is Airworthiness Standards; Engine
conditions from idle up to, but not capable of further operation without Control System Requirements
including, maximum continuous power maintenance action at the maximum AGENCY: Federal Aviation
and rotational speed; and propeller overtorque condition. This Administration, DOT.
(C) Thirty minutes at idle. may be accomplished by: ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(2) The operation of the propeller (1) Performance of 20 runs, each of 30
throughout the engine endurance tests (NPRM).
seconds duration, at the maximum
prescribed in part 33 of this chapter. propeller overtorque condition; or SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation
(c) An analysis based on tests of (2) Analysis based on test or service Administration (FAA) is proposing to
propellers of similar design may be used experience. revise type certification standards for
in place of the tests of § 35.39(a) and (b). aircraft engine control systems. These
32. Add § 35.40 to read as follows: § 35.42 Components of the propeller
control system. proposed changes reflect current
§ 35.40 Functional test. practices and harmonize FAA standards
The applicant must demonstrate by with those recently adopted by the
The variable-pitch propeller system tests, analysis based on tests, or service
must be subjected to the applicable European Aviation Safety Agency
experience on similar components, that (EASA). These proposed changes would
functional tests of this section. The each propeller blade pitch control
same propeller system used in the establish uniform standards for all
system component, including governors, engine control systems for aircraft
endurance test (§ 35.39) must be used in pitch change assemblies, pitch locks,
the functional tests and must be driven engines certificated by both U.S. and
mechanical stops, and feathering system European countries and would simplify
by a representative engine on a test components, can withstand cyclic
stand or on an airplane. The propeller airworthiness approvals for import and
operation that simulates the normal load export.
must complete these tests without and pitch change travel to which the
evidence of failure or malfunction. This DATES: Send your comments on or
component would be subjected during
test may be combined with the the initially declared overhaul period or before July 10, 2007.
endurance test for accumulation of during a minimum of 1000 hours of ADDRESSES: You may send comments
cycles. typical operation in service. identified by Docket Number [FAA–

(a) Manually-controllable propellers. 2007–27311] using any of the following
Five hundred representative flight § 35.43 Propeller hydraulic components. methods:
cycles must be made across the range of Applicants must show that propeller • DOT Docket Web site: Go to
pitch and rotational speed. components that contain hydraulic http://dms.dot.gov and follow the
(b) Governing propellers. Fifteen pressure and whose structural failure or instructions for sending your comments
hundred complete cycles must be made leakage from a structural failure could electronically.

Proposed Rule: Airworthiness Directives: Propellers

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Proposed Rule: Airworthiness Directives: Propellers

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

18136

Proposed Rules Federal Register

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

local, or tribal governments, or on the • Describe the alternatives E. Overlapping, Duplicative, or

Hartzell ......................................................................................................................................... $6,000 $37,500,000 0.016

Executive Order 13132, Federalism § 23.905 Propellers. 5. Revise § 25.901(b)(1)(i) to read as

manual. unintended travel of the propeller occurred if flight crew action is

cycles. typical operation in service. identified by Docket Number [FAA–

Você também pode gostar