Airworthiness Directives; Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation Propellers; Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 40376-40378 [2021-15979]

Download as PDF 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA); request for comment. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS AGENCY: 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 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Jul 27, 2021 Jkt 253001 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. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 (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. E:\FR\FM\28JYP1.SGM 28JYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 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, VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Jul 27, 2021 Jkt 253001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 40377 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, 1 Small Business Administration (SBA). 2019. Table of Size Standards. Effective August 12, 2019. https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-sizestandards. E:\FR\FM\28JYP1.SGM 28JYP1 40378 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:59 Jul 27, 2021 Jkt 253001 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. AGENCY: 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: SUMMARY: 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 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 E:\FR\FM\28JYP1.SGM 28JYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40376-40378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15979]


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

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: 
[email protected].

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.

[[Page 40377]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 fifty-three (53) airplanes with 54H model 
propellers having propeller hub, model 54H60,

[[Page 40378]]

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 x 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