Home/Federal/Federal Register/2022-08539

Rule2022-08539

Airworthiness Directives; Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation Propellers

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

April 22, 2022

Effective

May 27, 2022

Issuing agencies

Transportation DepartmentFederal Aviation Administration

Abstract

The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-12-07 for certain Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation (Hamilton Sundstrand) 54H model propellers. AD 2020-12-07 required initial and repetitive eddy current inspections (ECI) of certain propeller blades and replacement of the propeller blades that fail the inspection. This AD was prompted by a report of the separation of a 54H60 model propeller blade installed on a United States Marine Corps Reserve (USMCR) KC-130T airplane during a flight in July 2017. This AD requires initial and repetitive ECI of all propeller blades installed on Hamilton Sundstrand 54H60 propeller hubs and replacement of any propeller blade that fails inspection. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 78 (Friday, April 22, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24029-24034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08539]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0032; Project Identifier AD-2020-01314-P;
Amendment 39-22013; AD 2022-08-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation
Propellers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-12-07
for certain Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation (Hamilton Sundstrand) 54H
model propellers. AD 2020-12-07 required initial and repetitive eddy
current inspections (ECI) of certain propeller blades and replacement
of the propeller blades that fail the inspection. This AD was prompted
by a report of the separation of a 54H60 model propeller blade
installed on a United States Marine Corps Reserve (USMCR) KC-130T
airplane during a flight in July 2017. This AD requires initial and
repetitive ECI of all propeller blades installed on Hamilton Sundstrand
54H60 propeller hubs and replacement of any propeller blade that fails
inspection. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 27, 2022.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 27, 2022.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Hamilton Sundstrand, 1 Hamilton Road, Windsor Locks, CT 06096-
1010; phone: (877) 808-7575; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c784958487a4a8ababaea9b4e9a4a8aa">[email&#160;protected]</a>. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(817) 222-5110. It is also available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0032.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0032; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, any
comments received, and other information. The address for Docket
Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Schwetz, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA
01803; phone: (781) 238-7761; fax: (781) 238-7199; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d54402c3b3e402c243f402f2c2e22402e223e2d0b0c0c430a021b">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-12-07, Amendment 39-21142 (85 FR
36145, June 15, 2020), (``AD 2020-12-07''). AD 2020-12-07 applied to
certain Hamilton Sundstrand 54H model propellers. Note that AD 2020-12-
07 and the Hamilton Sundstrand service information reference 54H60
model propellers whereas this AD references 54H model propellers.
Hamilton Sundstrand 54H60 model propellers are 54H model propellers
with a 54H60 model propeller hub.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2021 (86
FR 11473). The NPRM was prompted by a report of the separation of a
54H60 model propeller blade installed on a USMCR KC-130T airplane
during a flight in July 2017. The USMCR investigation of this event
revealed the Hamilton Sundstrand 54H60 model propeller blade separated
due to corrosion pitting and a resultant intergranular radial crack
that was not corrected at the last propeller overhaul. From this
intergranular crack, a fatigue crack initiated and grew under service
loading until the Hamilton Sundstrand 54H60 model propeller blade could
no longer sustain the applied loads and ultimately the blade separated.
The separation of the blade resulted in the loss of the airplane and 17
fatalities. The investigation further revealed that 54H60 model
propeller blades manufactured before 1971 are susceptible to cracks of
the propeller blade in the area of the internal taper bore. The
applicability of AD 2020-12-07 was therefore limited to those Hamilton
Sundstrand 54H60 model propellers blades with a blade serial number (S/
N) below 813320, which are those propeller blades manufactured before
1971.
Since the FAA issued AD 2020-12-07, the manufacturer determined
that all propeller blades installed on Hamilton Sundstrand 54H model
propellers with a 54H60 model propeller hub are susceptible to
intergranular corrosion cracking in the blade taper bore. As a result,
the manufacturer published Hamilton Sundstrand Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB) 54H60-61-A154, Revision 1, dated May 29, 2020 (ASB 54H60-61-
A154), to expand the effectivity to include propeller blades with a
blade S/N below 813320, all propeller blades if the propeller contains
a propeller blade with a blade S/N below 813320, and all propeller
blades that have not been overhauled within ten years. ASB 54H60-61-
A154 also provides instructions for concurrent compliance with Hamilton
Sundstrand ASB 54H60-61-A155, dated May 29, 2020, to ECI an expanded
and deeper taper bore area. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require
initial and repetitive ECI of all propeller blades installed on
Hamilton Sundstrand 54H60 propeller hubs and replacement of any
propeller blade that fails inspection. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

The FAA received comments from one commenter, Lynden Air Cargo, LLC
(LAC). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the
FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Remove ``All'' From Proposed AD Requirements

LAC noted that the proposed AD used the word ``all'' in reference
to propeller blades in the preamble of the NPRM. LAC stated that this
AD should not apply to newly manufactured (-2A)

[[Page 24030]]

propeller blades because those propeller blades are manufactured with
an enhanced process to reduce the risk of failure.
While the -2A propeller blades (P/Ns A7111D-2A and A7111E-2A) and
overhauled blades (P/Ns A7111D-2A2, A7111D-2A3, A7111E-2A2, and A7111E-
2A3) have an enhanced process and improved protection, these blades are
still susceptible to cracking in the propeller blade taper bore. The
unsafe condition is still under investigation by the manufacturer and,
depending on the results of that investigation, the FAA may consider
further rulemaking action. The FAA did not change this AD as a result
of this comment.

Comment Concerning Estimated Costs and the Availability of Replacement
Propeller Blades

LAC stated that it disagrees with the Estimated Costs section in
the NPRM. LAC noted that the proposed AD underestimated the cost of
compliance, and determined that the total costs associated with the
performance of an ECI of all propeller blades installed on the
propeller and reporting the ECI results for U.S. operators was
approximately $1,948,280 per inspection interval. LAC used a labor rate
of $130 per hour in its estimate, suggesting the FAA's estimated $85
per hour amount in the proposed AD was inaccurate. LAC also determined
that the total compliance cost over the typical life of a new propeller
(4 inspections) was $7,793,120 for propellers installed on aircraft of
U.S. registry, not including lost revenue due to the aircraft being out
of service. LAC provided a table within its comment, specifying LAC's
breakdown of costs associated with complying with this AD. LAC also
noted that Derco, the only supplier of new manufactured replacement
propeller blades, was quoting $68,000 per blade, which was higher than
the FAA's estimated $63,500 per blade, and would not guarantee or
specify any delivery dates or quantities available.
The comments from LAC are addressed in paragraph 2 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Determination of this AD. The FAA did not make
any changes to this AD as a result of this comment.

Comment on Effect of AD on Small Entities

LAC noted that due to the small population of civil certified
aircraft using the 54H model propellers, the proposed AD could be
considered a significant regulatory action due to it being economically
significant. LAC also noted that the proposed AD would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because the majority of civil operators affected by the AD are
categorized by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as small
businesses, having fewer than 500 employees.
As set forth in this preamble, this AD is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866. Regarding LAC's
comment on the economic impact to small entities, that comment is
addressed in paragraph 2 of the Regulatory Flexibility Determination in
the preamble of this AD. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of
this comment.

Comment on Effect of AD on Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

LAC noted that the proposed AD would affect intrastate aviation in
Alaska because LAC is based in Anchorage, Alaska and operates
throughout the state.
The FAA disagrees. LAC did not include in its comment any
information to suggest that performance of the ECI on the propeller
blades would affect service to remote Alaskan communities that are not
available by other modes of transportation, while LAC's airplanes are
out of service for the ECI of the taper bore. The FAA has determined
that this AD would not have a significant negative impact on the
availability of transportation services to a remotely located Alaskan
community that is not serviced by other modes of transportation. Even
if this AD did have a significant negative impact on the availability
of LAC's transportation services to a remotely located Alaskan
community not serviced by other modes of transportation, the safety
concerns explained in this AD outweigh the benefits of making said
transportation available.

Comment on Determining Manufacture Date of Affected Propeller Blades

LAC commented that, in reference to ``since new'' used in paragraph
(g)(3) of the Required Actions, LAC has been advised by Collins
Aerospace that the date code method of assigning S/Ns for propeller
blades was not in effect for propeller blades until the late 1990s. As
a result, LAC commented, each S/N must be manually researched from hand
written production records, and a quick reference S/N database is not
available. LAC also noted that this will make determining the blade
date of manufacture problematic and time consuming.
The FAA acknowledges that the process to determine the propeller
blade's date of manufacture may be time consuming. However, the FAA
notes that paragraph (g)(3) of this AD assumes that a date record
exists for each installed propeller blade that has been through
overhaul activities because propeller maintenance records must comply
with 14 CFR 43.11. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this
comment.

Request for Clarification on Installation Prohibition

LAC stated that, in reference to paragraph (h)(1) of the NPRM,
Installation Prohibition, this AD should not apply to newly
manufactured (-2A) propeller blades because those propeller blades are
manufactured with an enhanced process to reduce the risk of failure.
LAC also commented that paragraph (h)(2) of the NPRM, Installation
Prohibition, would prohibit installation of a propeller blade unless
that propeller blade has first passed the initial inspection required
by paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this AD. LAC understood this
installation prohibition to apply to propeller blades that were removed
and installed for maintenance that is unrelated to the propeller blade
inspection. LAC disagrees with the inclusion of this installation
prohibition because propeller assemblies are routinely removed and
replaced in the field for a variety of unrelated maintenance tasks
where there may be limited tooling, propeller stands, or non-
destructive test equipment. The added requirement to fully disassemble
the propeller and inspect the blades before they are due for the
initial inspection is an unnecessary burden on the operators, and
logistically problematic.
The FAA disagrees with excluding newly manufactured propeller
blades from the installation prohibition section of this AD for the
same reasons explained in response to LAC's comment on excluding newly
manufactured propeller blades from the applicability section of this
AD. Regarding LAC's comment on removing and installing the propeller
blade assembly for unrelated maintenance, the FAA agrees to clarify
paragraph (h)(2) Installation Prohibition, of this AD to account for
those circumstances. The FAA acknowledges that a propeller assembly may
require specific maintenance activity to remove the propeller blade
assembly and control assembly from the aircraft, but not require the
rotating barrel and propeller blade assembly to be disassembled or
``split,'' where the propeller blades are not readily accessible for
the inspection. The FAA added a note to paragraph

[[Page 24031]]

(h)(2) of this AD clarifying that operators may install a propeller
assembly with a propeller blade identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through
(3) of this AD if the propeller blade assembly is not disassembled and
the propeller blades are not yet due for an ECI as required by
paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this AD.

Conclusion

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adoption of the AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Except for the addition of a note to
paragraph (h) Installation Prohibition, this AD is adopted as proposed
in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on
any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

The FAA reviewed Hamilton Sundstrand ASB 54H60-61-A154, Revision 1,
dated May 29, 2020. This ASB identifies the affected propeller models
and specifies procedures for performing an ECI of the propeller blade
taper bore.
The FAA also reviewed Hamilton Sundstrand ASB 54H60-61-A155, dated
May 29, 2020. This ASB also identifies affected propeller models and
specifies procedures for performing an expanded ECI of the propeller
blade taper bore. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Interim Action

The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. This unsafe
condition is still under investigation by the manufacturer and,
depending on the results of that investigation, the FAA may consider
further rulemaking action.

Costs of Compliance

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 212 propellers installed on
53 aircraft of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per Cost on U.S.
Action Labor cost Parts cost product operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECI all propeller blades installed on 16 work-hours x $85 per $700 $2,060 $436,720
propeller. hour = $1,360.
Report results of ECI................. 1 work-hour x $85 per 0 85 18,020
hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacement that would be required based on the results of the
inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need this replacement:

On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per
Action Labor cost Parts cost product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace propeller blade....................... 1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85 $63,500 $63,585
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with 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. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

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,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If

[[Page 24032]]

the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
The FAA published an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
(86 FR 40376, July 28, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-0032; Project
Identifier AD-2020-01314-P to aid the public in commenting on the
potential impacts to small entities. The FAA considered the public
comments in developing both the final rule and this Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). A FRFA must contain the following:
(1) A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;
(2) A statement of the significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of the assessment of the
agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the final
rule as a result of such comments;
(3) The response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA in response to the proposed rule, and a
detailed statement of any change made in the final rule as a result of
the comments;
(4) A description of and an estimate of the number of small
entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such
estimate is available;
(5) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record; and
(6) A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in the final rule and why each of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the
impact on small entities was rejected.

1. Need for and Objectives of the Rule

This AD was prompted by a report of the separation of a 54H60 model
propeller blade installed on a USMCR KC-130T airplane during a flight
in July 2017. It requires initial and repetitive ECIs of all propeller
blades installed on Hamilton Sundstrand 54H model propellers with a
propeller hub, model 54H60, installed. Additionally, this final rule AD
requires replacement of any propeller blade that fails inspection. The
FAA is issuing this AD to detect cracking in the propeller blade taper
bore. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure
of the propeller blade, blade separation, and loss of the airplane.
The FAA's legal basis for this AD is discussed in detail under the
``Authority for this Rulemaking'' section.

2. Significant Issues Raised in Public Comments

The FAA published an IRFA for Docket No. FAA-2021-0032; Project
Identifier AD-2020-01314-P and requested comments.
LAC commented that the proposed AD underestimated the cost of
compliance, and determined that the true cost on U.S. operators will be
approximately $1,948,280 per inspection interval. LAC also determined
that the total compliance cost over the typical life of a new propeller
(4 inspections) is expected to be $7,793,120, not including lost
revenue due to the aircraft being out of service. LAC also noted that
Derco, the only supplier of new manufactured replacement propeller
blades, was currently quoting $68,000 per propeller blade, and would
not guarantee or specify any delivery dates or quantities available.
The FAA disagrees with updating the estimated costs of this AD. The
cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions typically includes only the
costs associated with complying with the AD, and does not include
secondary costs. The FAA's cost estimate includes the work hours and
parts costs to inspect and replace the parts. Using the compliance cost
estimate that LAC provided in its public comment to the proposed AD
($9,190 to inspect all propeller blades installed on each propeller, or
$36,760 to inspect an airplane with four propellers), the FAA
calculated the total compliance costs of this AD on 15 small businesses
that own and operate 27 airplanes at $992,520 ($36,760 x 27). Eight
small businesses that own and operate one airplane would incur $36,760.
The compliance costs of one small entity with five airplanes would be
$183,800. The average compliance costs of this AD on small entities
would be $66,168 ($992,520/15).
The FAA estimated the revenue impact of complying with this AD's
requirements on these 15 small entities would vary from under 1 percent
(0.12 percent) of affected companies' annual revenues to approximately
2 percent (1.69 percent) of their annual revenues.
LAC also noted that the proposed AD will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the
majority of civil operators affected by this AD are categorized by the
SBA as ``Small Businesses'' having fewer than 500 employees.
The FAA identified 33 airplanes with 54H model propellers having
propeller hub, model 54H60, installed, that are owned and operated by
16 private entities and fall under the 481112 NAICS Code (Scheduled
Freight Air Transportation) with a small business size standard of a
maximum of 1,500 employees to be considered small business. Six of
these 33 airplanes are registered to LAC, affiliated with the Lynden
Incorporated, which, with 2,500 employees on its payroll, is not a
small entity per the SBA definition. The FAA considered all other
entities that own and operate similar airplanes as small entities since
they all employ less than 1,500 employees. The FAA also estimated the
revenue impact of complying with this AD's requirements would vary from
under 1 percent (0.12 percent) of affected companies' annual revenues
to approximately 2 percent (1.69 percent) of their annual revenues. The
FAA determined that no changes are necessary to this AD as a result of
these comments.

3. Response to SBA Comments

The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA did not file any comments
in response to the proposed rule. Thus, the FAA did not make any
changes to this AD.

4. Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply

FAA used the definition of small entities in the RFA for this
analysis. The RFA defines small entities as small businesses, small
governmental jurisdictions, or small organizations. In 5 U.S.C. 601(3),
the RFA defines ``small business'' to have the same meaning as ``small
business concern'' under section 3 of the Small Business Act. The Small
Business Act authorizes the SBA to define ``small business'' by issuing
regulations.
SBA (2019) has established size standards for various types of
economic activities, or industries, under the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS).\1\ These size standards generally define
small businesses based on the number of employees or annual receipts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Small Business Administration (SBA). 2019. Table of Size
Standards. Effective August 12, 2019. <a href="https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards">https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA identified 53 airplanes with 54H model propellers having
propeller hub, model 54H60, installed. These 53 airplanes are
registered to 20 entities. Of these 53 airplanes, 20 are registered to

[[Page 24033]]

United States Government entities, including the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, which operates 13 of these airplanes. The FAA
determined that these government entities are not small businesses or
other forms of small entity.
The remaining 33 airplanes are owned and operated by 16 private
entities. All of these private entities fall under the 481112 NAICS
Code (Scheduled Freight Air Transportation) with a small business size
standard of a maximum of 1,500 employees to be considered small
business.
Six of these 33 airplanes are registered to LAC, affiliated with
the Lynden Incorporated, which, with 2,500 employees on its payroll, is
not a small entity per the SBA definition. The FAA considered all other
entities that own and operate similar airplanes as small entities since
they all employ less than 1,500 employees. Therefore, the FAA estimated
that this AD would impact 15 small entities.

5. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements

Small entities will incur a new reporting requirement as a result
of this AD. Results of the ECI required by paragraphs (g)(1) through
(5) of this AD must be reported in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 3.C.(6), of Hamilton Sundstrand ASB 54H60-61-
A154, Revision 1, dated May 29, 2020. The FAA also estimated that there
would be compliance costs due to the new requirements as discussed in
this preamble.
Using the compliance cost estimate that LAC provided in its public
comment to the proposed AD ($9,190 to inspect all propeller blades
installed on each propeller, or $36,760 to inspect an airplane with
four propellers), the total compliance costs of this AD on 15 small
businesses that own and operate 27 airplanes would be $992,520 ($36,760
x 27). Eight small businesses that own and operate one airplane would
incur $36,760. The compliance costs of one small entity with five
airplanes would be $183,800. The average compliance costs of this AD on
small entities would be $66,168 ($992,520/15).
The FAA estimated the revenue impact of complying with this AD's
requirements on these 15 small entities would vary from under 1 percent
(0.12 percent) of affected companies' annual revenues to approximately
2 percent (1.69 percent) of their annual revenues.
To the extent that small entities provide more unique services or
serve markets with less competition, they may also be able to pass on
costs in the form of price increases. However, the FAA assumed that
none of these small entities would be able to pass these compliance
costs to their customers in terms of higher prices.

6. Significant Alternatives Considered

As part of the FRFA, the FAA is required to consider regulatory
alternatives that may be less burdensome.
The FAA did not find any significant regulatory alternatives that
would still accomplish the safety objectives of this AD.

Regulatory Findings

The FAA has determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec. 39.13 [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2020-12-07, Amendment 39-21142 (85
FR 36145, June 15, 2020); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

2022-08-10 Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation: Amendment 39-22013;
Docket No. FAA-2021-0032; Project Identifier AD-2020-01314-P.

(a) Effective Date

This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 27, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD replaces AD 2020-12-07, Amendment 39-21142 (85 FR 36145,
June 15, 2020).

This AD applies to all Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation (Hamilton
Sundstrand) 54H model propellers with a propeller hub, model 54H60,
installed.
Note to paragraph (c): Hamilton Sundstrand references propeller
model 54H60 in Hamilton Sundstrand Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)
54H60-61-A154, Revision 1, dated May 29, 2020. These are model 54H
propellers with a 54H60 model propeller hub.

(d) Subject

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6111, Propeller
Blade Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by the separation of a propeller blade that
resulted in the loss of an airplane and 17 fatalities. The FAA is
issuing this AD to detect cracking in the propeller blade taper
bore. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
failure of the propeller blade, blade separation, and loss of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

(1) For propellers with an installed propeller blade having a
blade serial number (S/N) below 813320, that has not been overhauled
within the past sixty (60) months, within one year or 500 flight
hours (FHs) after July 20, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-12-
07), whichever occurs first, perform an eddy current inspection
(ECI) of all blades installed on the propeller.
(2) For propellers with an installed propeller blade having a
blade S/N below 813320, that has been overhauled within the past
sixty (60) months, within two years or 1,000 FHs after July 20, 2020
(the effective date of AD 2020-12-07), whichever occurs first,
perform an ECI of all blades installed on the propeller.
(3) For propellers with an installed propeller blade, blade S/N
813320 and above, that has not been overhauled within ten years
since new or since last overhaul, within one year or 500 FHs after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform an
ECI of all blades installed on the propeller.
(4) Perform the ECI of the propeller blades required by
paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this AD in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.C.(5), of both Hamilton
Sundstrand ASB 54H60-61-A154, Revision 1, dated May 29, 2020, and of
Hamilton Sundstrand ASB 54H60-61-A155, dated May 29, 2020.
(5) For all propellers identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through
(3) of this AD, repeat the inspection required by paragraphs

[[Page 24034]]

(g)(1) through (4) of this AD at intervals not exceeding 3 years or
1,500 FHs, whichever comes first, from the previous inspection.
(6) If a propeller blade fails any inspection required by this
AD, based on the criteria in Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph
3.C.(5)(g) of Hamilton Sundstrand ASB 54H60-61-A154, Revision 1,
dated May 29, 2020, and paragraph 3.C.(5)(j) of Hamilton Sundstrand
ASB 54H60-61-A155, dated May 29, 2020, remove the blade from service
before further flight and replace with a blade eligible for
installation.
(7) Report the results of the ECI required by paragraphs (g)(1)
through (5) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 3.C.(6), of Hamilton Sundstrand ASB 54H60-
61-A154, Revision 1, dated May 29, 2020.

(h) Installation Prohibition

(1) After the effective date of this AD, do not install onto any
propeller a Hamilton Sundstrand propeller blade identified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this AD, unless the blade has first
passed the initial inspection required by paragraphs (g)(1) through
(4) of this AD.
(2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any
propeller assembly with a propeller blade identified in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (3) of this AD onto any aircraft unless the propeller
blades have first passed the initial inspection required by
paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this AD.
Note to paragraph (h)(2): Operators may install a propeller
assembly with a propeller blade identified in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (3) of this AD if the propeller blade assembly is not
disassembled and the propeller blades are not yet due for an ECI as
required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this AD.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

You may take credit for the initial ECI of a propeller blade
required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD and the replacement
of a propeller blade required by paragraph (g)(6) of this AD if the
actions were completed before the effective date of this AD using
Hamilton Sundstrand ASB 54H60-61-A154, dated August 26, 2019.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

For more information about this AD, contact Michael Schwetz,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7761; fax: (781) 238-
7199; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#043d2945525729454d56294645474b29474b57446265652a636b72">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Hamilton Sundstrand Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 54H60-61-
A154, Revision 1, dated May 29, 2020.
(ii) Hamilton Sundstrand ASB 54H60-61-A155, dated May 29, 2020.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Hamilton Sundstrand, 1 Hamilton Road, Windsor Locks, CT 06096-1010;
phone: (877) 808-7575; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3c7f6e7f7c5f53505055524f125f5351">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2e485c0047405d5e4b4d5a4741406e404f5c4f00494158">[email&#160;protected]</a>, or go to: <a href="https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html">https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html</a>.

Issued on April 7, 2022.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-08539 Filed 4-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on April 22, 2022.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.