40376 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

procedures and tests that are not identified 

as RC may be deviated from using accepted 

methods in accordance with the operator’s 

maintenance or inspection program without 

obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided 

the procedures and tests identified as RC can 

be done and the airplane can be put back in 

an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or 

changes to procedures or tests identified as 

RC require approval of an AMOC. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) For information about EASA AD 2021– 

0103 contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 

3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 

221 8999 000; email ADs@easa.europa.eu; 

internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find 

this EASA AD on the EASA website at 

https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this 

material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products 

Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 

South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. This 

material may be found in the AD docket on 

the internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

by searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2021–0568. 

(2) For more information about this AD, 

contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace 

Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, 

International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 

South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; 

telephone and fax: 206 231 3229; email 

vladimir.ulyanov@faa.gov. 

Issued on July 21, 2021. 

Gaetano A. Sciortino, 

Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, 

Compliance & Airworthiness Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15942 Filed 7–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2021–0032; Project 

Identifier AD–2020–01314–P] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Hamilton 

Sundstrand Corporation Propellers; 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Transportation 

(DOT). 

ACTION: Initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA); request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is publishing and 

requesting comments on this IRFA for 

the previously published notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Project 

Identifier AD–2020–01314–P, applicable 

to Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation 

54H model propellers with a 54H60 

model propeller hub installed. That 

NPRM proposed to supersede 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020–12– 

07, which applies to certain Hamilton 

Sundstrand Corporation (Hamilton 

Sundstrand) 54H model propellers. 

DATES: Comments on this IRFA for the 

NPRM published on February 25, 2021 

(86 FR 11473), must be received on or 

before September 13, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

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: michael.schwetz@

faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites you to send any 

written relevant data, views, or 

arguments about this IRFA. Send your 

comments to an address listed under 

ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2021–0032; Project Identifier AD–2020– 

01314–P’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. The FAA will consider 

all comments received by the closing 

date and may amend the proposal 

because of those comments. 

Except for Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) as described in the 

following paragraph, and other 

information as described in 14 CFR 

11.35, the FAA will post all comments 

received, without change, to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. The 

agency will also post a report 

summarizing each substantive verbal 

contact we receive about this proposed 

AD. 

Confidential Business Information 

CBI is commercial or financial 

information that is both customarily and 

actually treated as private by its owner. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt 

from public disclosure. If your 

comments responsive to this NPRM 

contain commercial or financial 

information that is customarily treated 

as private, that you actually treat as 

private, and that is relevant or 

responsive to this NPRM, it is important 

that you clearly designate the submitted 

comments as CBI. Please mark each 

page of your submission containing CBI 

as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such 

marked submissions as confidential 

under the FOIA, and they will not be 

placed in the public docket of this 

NPRM. Submissions containing CBI 

should be sent to Michael Schwetz, 

Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston ACO 

Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, 

Burlington, MA 01803. Any 

commentary that the FAA receives 

which is not specifically designated as 

CBI will be placed in the public docket 

for this rulemaking. 

Background 

The FAA issued AD 2020–12–07, 

Amendment 39–21142 (85 FR 36145, 

June 15, 2020) (AD 2020–12–07) for 

certain Hamilton Sundstrand 54H 

model propellers. AD 2020–12–07 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. 

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. AD 2020–12–07 required 

initial and repetitive eddy current 

inspections (ECIs) of the affected 

propeller blades and replacement of any 

propeller blade that fails inspection. 

The agency issued AD 2020–12–07 to 

detect cracking in the propeller blade 

taper bore. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40377 

1Small Business Administration (SBA). 2019. 

Table of Size Standards. Effective August 12, 2019. 

https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-sizestandards. 

Actions Since AD 2020–12–07 Was 

Issued 

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, to 

expand the effectivity of the ASB 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. 

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 objective 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 that principle, the RFA 

requires agencies to solicit and consider 

flexible regulatory proposals and to 

explain the rationale for their actions. 

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 proposed or final 

rule will have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. If the agency determines that it 

will, the agency must prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis as 

described in the Act. Based on the 

comments received following 

publication of the NPRM, the FAA has 

completed an IRFA and requests 

comments from affected small entities. 

The purpose of this analysis is to 

identify the number of small entities 

affected, assess the economic impact of 

the proposed regulation on them, and 

consider less burdensome alternatives 

and still meet the agency’s statutory 

objectives. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

of 1980, Public Law 96–354, 94 Stat. 

1164 (5 U.S.C. 601–612), as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. 

L. 104–121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 

1996) and the Small Business Jobs Act 

of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–240, 124 Stat. 

2504, Sept. 27, 2010), requires Federal 

agencies to consider the effects of the 

regulatory action on small business and 

other small entities and to minimize any 

significant economic impact. The term 

‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses and small organizations that 

are independently owned and operated 

and are not dominant in their fields, and 

small governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than fifty thousand 

(50,000). 

The FAA is publishing this Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

to aid the public in commenting on the 

potential impacts to small entities from 

this proposal. The FAA invites 

interested parties to submit data and 

information regarding the potential 

economic impact that would result from 

the proposal. The FAA will consider 

comments when making a 

determination or when completing a 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Assessment. 

Under Sections 603(b) and (c) of the 

RFA, the initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis for a proposed rule must: 

Contain the following: 

(1) A description of the reasons why 

the action by the agency is being 

considered; 

(2) A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

proposed rule; 

(3) A description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the proposed 

rule will apply; 

(4) 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; 

(5) An identification, to the extent 

practicable, of all relevant Federal rules 

that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with the proposed rule; and 

(6) A description of any significant 

alternatives to the proposed rule which 

accomplish the stated objectives of 

applicable statutes and which minimize 

any significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities. 

1. Reasons the Action Is Being 

Considered 

AD 2020–12–07 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 subsequent 

NPRM proposed to retain certain 

requirements of AD 2020–12–07 and 

proposed to require initial and 

repetitive ECIs of all propeller blades 

installed on Hamilton Sundstrand 54H 

model propellers with a propeller hub, 

model 54H60, installed. Additionally, 

the NPRM proposed to require 

replacement of any propeller blade that 

fails inspection. 

2. Objectives and Legal Basis of the 

Proposed Rule 

The FAA issued NPRM, Project 

Identifier AD–2020–01314–P, under the 

authority described in Title 49, Subtitle 

VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, 

General requirements. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing minimum 

safety standards required in the interest 

of safety. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority because it 

addresses an unsafe condition that is 

likely to exist or develop on the 

propellers identified in the NPRM. 

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. 

3. All Federal Rules That May 

Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict 

There are no relevant Federal rules 

that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with the proposed rule. 

4. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities 

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 Small 

Business Administration (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. 

The FAA identified fifty-three (53) 

airplanes with 54H model propellers 

having propeller hub, model 54H60, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40378 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

installed. These 53 airplanes are 

registered to twenty (20) entities. 

Twenty (20) airplanes are registered to 

the United States Government entities, 

including the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, which operates thirteen (13) 

of these airplanes. The FAA determined 

that these government entities are not 

small businesses or other forms of small 

entity. 

The remaining thirty-three (33) 

airplanes are owned and operated by 

sixteen (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 (6) of these thirty-three (33) 

airplanes are registered to Lynden Air 

Cargo, LLC, 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 proposed AD would 

impact fifteen (15) small entities. 

5. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, 

and Other Compliance Requirements 

There are no reporting or 

recordkeeping costs with this proposed 

AD. However, the FAA estimated that 

there would be compliance costs due to 

the proposed requirements as discussed 

below. 

Using the compliance cost estimate 

that Lynden Air Cargo LLC 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 (4) 

propellers), the FAA calculated the total 

compliance costs of this AD on fifteen 

(15) small businesses that own and 

operate twenty-seven (27) airplanes at 

$992,520 ($36,760 × 27). Eight (8) small 

businesses that own and operate one 

airplane would incur $36,760. The 

compliance costs of one small entity 

with five (5) 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 proposed 

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 

The FAA did not find any significant 

regulatory alternatives to the proposed 

AD that would still accomplish the 

safety objectives of this proposed AD. 

Issued on July 21, 2021. 

Gaetano A. Sciortino, 

Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, 

Compliance & Airworthiness Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15979 Filed 7–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2018–0689; Product 

Identifier 2018–CE–016–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream 

Aerospace Corporation Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

that proposed to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation 

(Gulfstream) Models G–IV and GIV–X 

airplanes. The NPRM was prompted by 

reports of disbonding and surface 

cracking of the composite aft pressure 

bulkhead. The NPRM proposed to 

require inspecting the forward and aft 

surfaces of the pressure bulkhead 

composite panels for damage and 

repairing any damage found. Since 

issuance of the NPRM, the FAA has 

determined that there is not an unsafe 

condition. Accordingly, the NPRM is 

withdrawn. 

DATES: As of July 28, 2021, the proposed 

rule, which published in the Federal 

Register on July 27, 2018 (83 FR 35568), 

is withdrawn. 

ADDRESSES: 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket at 

https://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2018–0689; 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 

AD action, any comments received, and 

other information. The street 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: 

William O. Herderich, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 

1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, 

GA 30337; phone: (404) 474–5547; fax: 

(404) 474–5605; email: 

william.o.herderich@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The FAA issued an NPRM that 

proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by 

adding an AD that would apply to 

certain serial-numbered Gulfstream 

Models G–IV and GIV–X airplanes. The 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on July 27, 2018 (83 FR 35568). 

The NPRM was prompted by reports of 

disbonding and accompanying surface 

cracking of the composite aft pressure 

bulkhead. The NPRM stated that this 

condition, if not addressed, could result 

in structural failure of the aft pressure 

bulkhead and loss of cabin pressure. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

require a one-time inspection of the 

forward and aft surfaces of the pressure 

bulkhead composite panels for damage 

and repairing any damage found. 

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued 

After issuance of the NPRM, the FAA 

reviewed a Gulfstream safety assessment 

and determined that a bulkhead with 

disbonding is still capable of carrying 

operational loads. If the affected 

airplanes are capable of carrying 

operational loads without failure, then 

there is no unsafe condition. 

Based on the above information, the 

FAA has determined that AD action is 

not warranted and the proposal should 

be withdrawn. 

Comments 

The FAA received comments from 

Gulfstream, the European Union 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and an 

individual commenter. 

Requests 

Gulfstream requested that the FAA 

clarify language throughout the 

preamble and unsafe condition 

statement. EASA requested the FAA add 

a requirement to repeat the inspection. 

The individual commenter requested 

the FAA clarify the affected serial 

numbers. 

The FAA acknowledges these 

comments. However, because the NPRM 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS