Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 24029 

(j) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD,

contact Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District 

Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 

238–7146; fax: (781) 238–7199; email: 

barbara.caufield@faa.gov. 

(2) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF 2019–

30R1, dated December 17, 2019, for more 

information. You may examine the Transport 

Canada AD in the AD docket at https://

www.regulations.gov by searching for and 

locating Docket No. FAA–2020–0692. 

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

None.

Issued on April 7, 2022.

Lance T. Gant, 

Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08562 Filed 4–21–22; 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; 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: CRC@

collins.com. 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 https://www.regulations.gov

by searching for and locating Docket No.

FAA–2021–0032.

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket at 

https://www.regulations.govby 

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: 9-AVS-AIR-BACOCOS@faa.gov. 

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) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
24030 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

ECI all propeller blades installed on propeller 16 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,360 ........ $700 $2,060 $436,720 

Report results of ECI ...................................... 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ................. 0 85 18,020 

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

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Replace propeller blade ............................................... 1 work-hour × $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 widerange 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
24032 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

1Small Business Administration (SBA). 2019. 

Table of Size Standards. Effective August 12, 2019. 

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

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 × 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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 × 

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 

■ 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: 

■ a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 

2020–12–07, Amendment 39–21142 (85 

FR 36145, June 15, 2020); and 

■ 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). 

(c) Applicability 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
24034 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(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: 9-AVS-AIR-BACO-COS@faa.gov. 

(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: CRC@

collins.com. 

(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: fr.inspection@nara.gov, or go to: 

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations.html. 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2021–1169; Project 

Identifier AD–2021–01011–T; Amendment 

39–22008; AD 2022–08–05] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

The Boeing Company Model 737–800 

series airplanes. This AD was prompted 

by the determination that insufficient 

sealing may allow water to enter the 

lower lobe electronic equipment (EE) 

bay through the main deck floor 

structure at the rigid cargo barrier (RCB), 

which could cause damage to EE bay 

line replacement units (LRUs) in the E5 

rack. This AD requires detailed 

inspections for the presence and 

condition of sealant at certain locations 

and applicable on-condition actions. 

This AD also requires replacing the 

moisture barrier tape at a certain 

location, replacing the weather seal at a 

certain location, and installing seat track 

fillers. 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 a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of May 27, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this final rule, contact 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

Attention: Contractual & Data Services 

(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 

110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; 

telephone 562–797–1717; internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may view this service information 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. 

It is also available at https://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2021– 

1169. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket at 

https://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2021–1169; 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: 

Courtney Tuck, Aerospace Engineer, 

Cabin Safety and Environmental 

Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO 

Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des 

Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206– 

231–3986; email: courtney.k.tuck@

faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to certain The Boeing Company 

Model 737–800 series airplanes. The 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1