Document ID: FAA-2021-0032-0004
Agency: faa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Airworthiness Directives: Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation Propellers
Posted Date: 2022-04-22T04:00Z

[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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: [email protected]. 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: [email protected].

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. https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).

(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

[[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: [email protected].

(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: [email protected].
    (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: [email protected], 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