49660 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

2. Additional performance measures 

applicable to tests and rational analysis 

conducted to show compliance with 

§§ 25.562 and 25.785 for side-facing 

seats: 

(a) Body-to-body contact: Contact 

between the head, pelvis, torso, or 

shoulder area of one ATD with the 

adjacent-seated ATD’s head, pelvis, 

torso, or shoulder area is not allowed. 

Contact during rebound is allowed. 

(b) Thoracic: The deflection of any of 

the ES–2re ATD upper, middle, and 

lower ribs must not exceed 1.73 inches 

(44 mm). Data must be processed as 

defined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards (FMVSS) 571.214. 

(c) Abdominal: The sum of the 

measured ES–2re ATD front, middle, 

and rear abdominal forces must not 

exceed 562 lb (2,500 N). Data must be 

processed as defined in FMVSS 

571.214. 

(d) Pelvic: The pubic symphysis force 

measured by the ES–2re ATD must not 

exceed 1,350 lb (6,000 N). Data must be 

processed as defined in FMVSS 

571.214. 

(e) Leg: Axial rotation of the upper-leg 

(femur) must be limited to 35 degrees in 

either direction from the nominal seated 

position. 

(f) Neck: As measured by the ES–2re 

ATD and filtered at channel frequency 

class (CFC) 600 as defined in SAE J211: 

(1) The upper-neck tension force at 

the occipital condyle location must be 

less than 405 lb (1,800 N). 

(2) The upper-neck compression force 

at the occipital condyle location must be 

less than 405 lb (1,800 N). 

(3) The upper-neck bending torque 

about the ATD x-axis at the occipital 

condyle location must be less than 1,018 

in-lb (115 Nm). 

(4) The upper-neck resultant shear 

force at the occipital condyle location 

must be less than 186 lb (825 N). 

(g) Occupant (ES–2re ATD) retention: 

The pelvic restraint must remain on the 

ES–2re ATD’s pelvis during the impact 

and rebound phases of the test. The 

upper-torso restraint straps (if present) 

must remain on the ATD’s shoulder 

during the impact. 

(h) Occupant (ES–2re ATD) support: 

(1) Pelvis excursion: The load-bearing 

portion of the bottom of the ATD pelvis 

must not translate beyond the edges of 

its seat’s bottom seat-cushion 

supporting structure. 

(2) Upper-torso support: The lateral 

flexion of the ATD torso must not 

exceed 40 degrees from the normal 

upright position during the impact. 

3. For seats with airbag systems in the 

shoulder belts, show that the airbag 

systems in the shoulder belts will 

deploy and provide protection under 

crash conditions where it is necessary to 

prevent serious injury. The means of 

protection must take into consideration 

a range of stature from a 2-year-old child 

to a 95th percentile male. The airbag 

systems in the shoulder belts must 

provide a consistent approach to energy 

absorption throughout that range of 

occupants. When the seat systems 

include airbag systems, the systems 

must be included in each of the 

certification tests as they would be 

installed in the airplane. In addition, the 

following situations must be considered: 

(a) The seat occupant is holding an 

infant. 

(b) The seat occupant is a pregnant 

woman. 

4. The airbag systems in the shoulder 

belts must provide adequate protection 

for each occupant regardless of the 

number of occupants of the seat 

assembly, considering that unoccupied 

seats may have active airbag systems in 

the shoulder belts. 

5. The design must prevent the airbag 

systems in the shoulder belts from being 

either incorrectly buckled or incorrectly 

installed, such that the airbag systems in 

the shoulder belts would not properly 

deploy. Alternatively, it must be shown 

that such deployment is not hazardous 

to the occupant and will provide the 

required injury protection. 

6. It must be shown that the airbag 

systems in the shoulder belts are not 

susceptible to inadvertent deployment 

as a result of wear and tear, inertial 

loads resulting from in-flight or ground 

maneuvers (e.g., including gusts and 

hard landings), and other operating and 

environmental conditions (e.g., 

vibrations and moisture) likely to occur 

in service. 

7. Deployment of the airbag systems 

in the shoulder belts must not introduce 

injury mechanisms to the seated 

occupants or result in injuries that 

could impede rapid egress. This 

assessment should include an occupant 

whose belt is loosely fastened. 

8. It must be shown that inadvertent 

deployment of the airbag systems in the 

shoulder belts, during the most critical 

part of the flight, will either meet the 

requirement of § 25.1309(b) or not cause 

a hazard to the airplane or its occupants. 

9. It must be shown that the airbag 

systems in the shoulder belts will not 

impede rapid egress of occupants 10 

seconds after airbag deployment. 

10. The airbag systems must be 

protected from lightning and highintensity radiated fields (HIRF). The 

threats to the airplane specified in 

existing regulations regarding lighting, 

§ 25.1316, and HIRF, § 25.1317, are 

incorporated by reference for the 

purpose of measuring lightning and 

HIRF protection. 

11. The airbag systems in the shoulder 

belts must function properly after loss of 

normal aircraft electrical power and 

after a transverse separation of the 

fuselage at the most critical location. A 

separation at the location of the airbag 

systems in the shoulder belts does not 

have to be considered. 

12. It must be shown that the airbag 

systems in the shoulder belts will not 

release hazardous quantities of gas or 

particulate matter into the cabin. 

13. The airbag systems in the 

shoulder-belt installations must be 

protected from the effects of fire such 

that no hazard to occupants will result. 

14. A means must be available for a 

crew member to verify the integrity of 

the airbag systems in the shoulder-belts 

activation system prior to each flight or 

it must be demonstrated to reliably 

operate between inspection intervals. 

The FAA considers that the loss of the 

airbag-system deployment function 

alone (i.e., independent of the 

conditional event that requires the 

airbag-system deployment) is a majorfailure condition. 

15. The inflatable material may not 

have an average burn rate of greater than 

2.5 inches/minute when tested using the 

horizontal flammability test defined in 

part 25, appendix F, part I, paragraph 

(b)(5). 

16. Once deployed, the airbag systems 

in the shoulder belts must not adversely 

affect the emergency-lighting system 

(e.g., block floor proximity lights to the 

extent that the lights no longer meet 

their intended function). 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

9, 2013. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19754 Filed 8–14–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0262; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NE–13–AD; Amendment 39– 

17548; AD 2013–16–10] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Hamilton 

Standard Division and Hamilton 

Sundstrand Corporation Propellers 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 49661 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for 

Hamilton Standard Division model 6/ 

5500/F and 24PF and Hamilton 

Sundstrand Corporation model 14RF, 

14SF, 247F, and 568F series propellers. 

This AD was prompted by the amount 

of corrosion detected during major 

inspections (MI). This AD requires 

incorporating inspections, based on a 

calendar time, into the propeller 

maintenance schedule. We are issuing 

this AD to prevent corrosion that could 

result in propeller failure and loss of 

airplane control. 

DATES: This AD is effective September 

19, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations 

office is located at Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Hamilton Sundstrand 

Corporation, One Hamilton Road, Mail 

Stop 1A–3–C63, Windsor Locks, CT 

06096–1010; or Hamilton Standard 

Division, One Hamilton Road, United 

Technologies Corporation, Mail Stop 

1A–3–C63, Windsor Locks, CT 06096– 

1010; phone: 877–808–7575; fax: 860– 

660–0372; email: 

tech.solutions@hs.utc.com; Internet: 

http://myhs.hamiltonsundstrand.com. 

You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Engine & Propeller 

Directorate, 12 New England Executive 

Park, Burlington, MA 01803. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

the Docket Office (phone: 800–647– 

5527) is provided in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Schwetz, Aerospace Engineer, 

Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 

FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781– 

238–7761; fax: 781–238–7170; email: 

michael.schwetz@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. The 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on May 23, 2013 (78 FR 30795). 

The NPRM proposed to require 

incorporating inspections, based on a 

calendar time, into the propeller 

maintenance schedule. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

received no comments on the NPRM (78 

FR 30795, May 23, 2013) or on the 

determination of the cost to the public. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting this AD 

as proposed except for minor editorial 

changes. We have determined that these 

minor changes: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 

30795, May 23, 2013) for correcting the 

unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 30795, 

May 23, 2013). 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects about 

1,044 propeller/hub combinations 

installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it will take about 

160 hours per propeller to perform one 

MI. The average labor rate is $85 per 

hour. Based on these figures, we 

estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. 

operators to be $14,198,400. 

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. 

We are 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 Findings 

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) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska to the extent that it justifies 

making a regulatory distinction, and 

(4) 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. 

Adoption of 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

2013–16–10 Hamilton Standard Division 

and Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation: 

Amendment 39–17548; Docket No. 

FAA–2013–0262; Directorate Identifier 

2013–NE–13–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective September 19, 2013. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Hamilton Standard 

Division 6/5500/F and 24PF and Hamilton 

Sundstrand Corporation 14RF, 14SF, 247F, 

and 568F series propellers. 

(d) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by the amount of 

corrosion detected during major inspections 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
49662 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(MI). We are issuing this AD to prevent 

corrosion that could result in propeller 

failure and loss of airplane control. 

(e) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(f) MI for Blades and Hubs That Have an 

Updated Airworthiness Limitations Section 

(ALS) 

For Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation 

propeller models 14RF–9, 14RF–21, 14SF–5, 

14SF–7, 14SF–11E, and 568F–1, that have an 

approved update to the ALS, within 45 days 

after the effective date of this AD, perform an 

MI on the blades and hubs no later than 

seven years after the date since installation 

(DSI). The DSI will begin at initial 

installation after the most recent MI or initial 

installation after production. Guidance on 

the inspections can be found in the 

applicable Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation 

models/manuals 14RF–9/P5186, revision 12, 

January 20, 2012; 14RF–21/P5189, revision 8, 

February 20, 2013; 14SF–5/P5188, revision 

10, dated January 14, 2013; 14SF–7/P5185, 

revision 13, dated December 13, 2011; 14SF– 

11E/P5207, revision 2, dated June 28, 2012; 

and 568F–1/P5206, revision 9, dated 

February 22, 2013. 

(g) MI for Blades and Hubs That Do Not 

Have an Updated ALS 

For Hamilton Standard Division propeller 

models 6/5500/F and 24PF and Hamilton 

Sundstrand Corporation propeller models 

14RF–19, 14RF–37, 14SF–11, 14SF–15, 

14SF–23, 14SF–17, 14SF–19, 247F–1, 247F– 

1E, 247F–3, 568F–1, 568F–5, and 568F–7, 

that do not have an approved update to the 

ALS, within one year after the effective date 

of this AD, perform an MI on the blades and 

hubs no later than seven years after the DSI. 

The DSI will begin at initial installation after 

the most recent MI or initial installation after 

production. Guidance on the inspections can 

be found in the applicable Hamilton 

Standard Division models/manuals 6/5500/ 

F/P5190 and 24PF/61–12–01, and Hamilton 

Sundstrand Corporation models/manuals 

14RF–19/P5199, 14RF–37/P5209, 14SF–11/ 

P5196, 14SF–15/P5197, 14SF–23/P5197, 

14SF–17/P5198, 14SF–19/P5198, 247F–1/ 

P4202, 247F–1E/P5204, 247F–3/P5205, 

568F–1/P5214, 568F–5/P5203, and 568F–7/ 

P5211. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification 

Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this 

AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 

39.19 to make your request. 

(i) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Michael Schwetz, Aerospace 

Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 

FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781–238– 

7761; fax: 781–238–7170; email: 

michael.schwetz@faa.gov. 

(2) Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation 

models/manuals 14RF–9/P5186, revision 12, 

January 20, 2012; 14RF–21/P5189, revision 8, 

February 20, 2013; 14SF–5/P5188, revision 

10, dated January 14, 2013; 14SF–7/P5185, 

revision 13, dated December 13, 2011; 14SF– 

11E/P5207, revision 2, dated June 28, 2012; 

and 568F–1/P5206, revision 9, dated 

February 22, 2013, which are not 

incorporated by reference in this AD, can be 

obtained from Hamilton Sundstrand 

Corporation, using the contact information in 

paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. 

(3) For service information identified in the 

AD, contact Hamilton Sundstrand 

Corporation, One Hamilton Road, Mail Stop 

1A–3–C63, Windsor Locks, CT 06096–1010; 

or Hamilton Standard Division, United 

Technologies Corporation, One Hamilton 

Road, Mail Stop 1A–3–C63, Windsor Locks, 

CT 06096–1010; phone: 877–808–7575; fax: 

860–660–0372; email: 

tech.solutions@hs.utc.com; Internet: http:// 

myhs.hamiltonsundstrand.com. You may 

view this service information at the FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803. For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference 

None. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

August 2, 2013. 

Carlos A. Pestana, 

Acting Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine 

& Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19649 Filed 8–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0472; Directorate 

Identifier 98–CE–097–AD; Amendment 39– 

17538; AD 99–07–10 R1] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; PIAGGIO 

AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; rescission. 

SUMMARY: We are rescinding an 

airworthiness directive (AD) for 

PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A. 

Model P–180 airplanes. The rescinded 

AD resulted from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as partial detachment of the 

inner protective film of the composite 

nacelles. Since issuance of the 

rescinded AD, we have determined that 

the unsafe condition does not exist or is 

not likely to develop on affected type 

design airplanes. 

DATES: This AD is effective September 

19, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4144; fax: (816) 

329–4090; email: mike.kiesov@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by rescinding AD 99–07–10 (64 

FR 14824, March 29, 1999) that applied 

to the specified products. The NPRM 

was published in the Federal Register 

on May 30, 2013 (78 FR 32363). 

On March 18, 1999, we issued AD 99– 

07–10, Amendment 39–11095 (64 FR 

14824, March 29, 1999), with an 

effective date of May 10, 1999. The AD 

required actions intended to address an 

unsafe condition on the products listed 

above. 

Since we issued AD 99–07–10, 

Amendment 39–11095 (64 FR 14824, 

March 29, 1999), the European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA), which is the 

Technical Agent for the Member States 

of the European Community, has issued 

AD Cancellation Notice No.: 2013– 

0085–CN, dated April 8, 2013, which 

cancelled Ente Nazionale per 

l’Aviazione Civile (ENAC) (the 

airworthiness authority for Italy) AD No. 

98–208, dated June 9, 1998. Italian AD 

No. 98–208 required the inspections and 

corrective actions of Piaggio Service 

Bulletin (Mandatory) No.: SB–80–0101, 

Original Issue: May 6, 1998. AD 99–07– 

10, Amendment 39–11095 (64 FR 

14824, March 29, 1999), is the result of 

mandatory continuing airworthiness 

information (MCAI) issued by ENAC. 

We have been notified that since 

2000, all nacelles for PIAGGIO AERO 

INDUSTRIES S.p.A Model P–180 

airplanes have been manufactured by a 

different supplier, and no new 

occurrences of film detachment have 

been reported on earlier manufactured 

airplanes. Therefore, nacelle inner panel 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES