Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland Inc.) Airplanes, 24927-24937 [2023-08551]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
(i) Bombardier Challenger 300 BD–100
Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Temporary
Revision (TR) TR5–2–101, dated June 30,
2022.
(ii) (Bombardier) Challenger 350 BD–100
Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Temporary
Revision TR5–2–30, dated June 30, 2022.
(3) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Bombardier Business
Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400 CoˆteVertu Road West, Dorval, Que´bec H4S 1Y9,
Canada; telephone 514–855–2999; email
ac.yul@aero.bombardier.com; website
bombardier.com.
(4) 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.
(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:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.
Issued on April 18, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–08574 Filed 4–24–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2022–0190; Project
Identifier 2019–CE–048–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air
Limited (Type Certificate Previously
Held by Bombardier Inc. and de
Havilland Inc.) Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA is revising a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
would have superseded Airworthiness
Directive (AD) 64–09–03, which applies
to all de Havilland (type certificate now
held by Viking Air Limited) Model
DHC–2 ‘‘Beaver’’ airplanes. This action
revises the NPRM by changing the
required action specified in the
proposed AD. Additionally, the FAA is
publishing an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to aid the
public in commenting on the potential
impacts to small entities from this
proposal. The FAA is reopening the
comment period to allow the public the
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Apr 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
chance to comment on the revised
proposed action and whether the
revised proposed action would have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these
products and the agency is requesting
comments on this SNPRM.
DATES: The FAA must receive comments
on this SNPRM by June 9, 2023.
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
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.
AD Docket: You may examine the AD
docket at regulations.gov under Docket
No. FAA–2022–0190; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains the NPRM, this SNPRM, the
mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is
listed above.
Material Incorporated by Reference:
• For service information identified
in this SNPRM, contact Viking Air
Limited Technical Support, 1959 De
Havilland Way, Sidney, British
Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone:
(800) 663–8444; fax: (250) 656–0673;
email: technical.support@vikingair.com;
website: vikingair.com/support/servicebulletins.
• You may view this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety
Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO
64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call (817) 222–5110.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Delisio, Continued Operational
Safety Program Manager, FAA, New
York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; phone: (516) 228–7321; email: 9avs-nyaco-cos@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to send any
written relevant data, views, or
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24927
arguments about this proposal,
including the IRFA. Send your
comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–
2022–0190; Project Identifier 2019–CE–
048–AD’’ 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 again revise this 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
regulations.gov, including any personal
information you provide. The agency
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received
about this SNPRM.
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 SNPRM
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 SNPRM, 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 SNPRM. Submissions containing
CBI should be sent to James Delisio,
Continued Operational Safety Program
Manager, FAA, New York ACO Branch,
1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590. 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 an NPRM (87 FR
7065, February 8, 2022; corrected
February 18, 2022 (87 FR 9274)) that
would apply to all Viking Air Limited
(Viking) Model DHC–2 Mk. I, DHC–2
Mk. II, and DHC–2 Mk. III airplanes.
The NPRM proposed to supersede AD
64–09–03, Amendment 718 (29 FR
5390, April 22, 1964) (AD 64–09–03),
which applies to all de Havilland (type
certificate now held by Viking) Model
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
24928
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
DHC–2 ‘‘Beaver’’ airplanes. AD 64–09–
03 requires inspecting the aileron mass
balance weight arms for cracks and
corrosion and replacing any damaged
part. AD 64–09–03 resulted from cracks
and corrosion found on aileron mass
balance weight arm part numbers (P/Ns)
C2WA151, C2WA152, C2WA127, and
C2WA128.
The NPRM proposed to require
establishing a corrosion prevention and
control program to identify and correct
corrosion. In the NPRM, the FAA also
proposed to require completing all of
the initial tasks identified in the
program and reporting corrosion
findings to Viking. The NPRM was
prompted by AD CF–2019–25, dated
July 5, 2019, issued by Transport
Canada, which is the airworthiness
authority for Canada (referred to after
this as ‘‘the MCAI’’). The MCAI states
that it supersedes prior Transport
Canada ADs related to a supplementary
inspection and corrosion control
program for aging airplanes, which
identifies specific locations of an
airplane that must be inspected to
ensure corrosion-related degradation
does not result in an unsafe condition.
The MCAI continues to require the tasks
included in the initial issue of Viking,
DHC–2 Beaver Supplemental Inspection
and Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1–
2–5, dated June 21, 2017, and requires
additional inspections for components
of airframe systems other than flight
controls, which are included in Viking
DHC–2 Beaver Supplemental Inspection
and Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1–
2–5, Revision 1, dated January 10, 2019
(Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1).
Corrosion-related degradation, if not
addressed, could lead to structural
failure with consequent loss of control
of the airplane.
You may examine the MCAI in the
AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA–2022–0190.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued
Since the FAA issued the NPRM, the
FAA revised the proposed actions
specified in the NPRM. In the NPRM,
the FAA proposed to require
establishing a corrosion prevention and
control program approved by the FAA.
In this SNPRM the FAA proposes to
require incorporating into the existing
maintenance records for your airplane
the actions specified in Parts 2 and 3 of
Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1.
In addition, the FAA is reopening the
comment period to allow the public the
chance to comment on whether the
proposed AD would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The FAA is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Apr 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.
Comments
The FAA received comments from 23
commenters. The commenters were the
Alaska Air Carriers Association, Alaska
Air Transporters, Alaska Aircraft Sales
and Maintenance, Alaska Seaplanes,
Athens Insurance, Beluga Air, LLC,
Enchanted Lake Lodge, Mountain Flying
Service, Regal Air, Tailwind Aviation
Inc., Taquan Air, Trail Ridge Air Inc.,
Ward Air, Inc., and several individuals.
The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA’s
response to each comment.
Request To Withdraw NPRM: Current
Regulations Are Adequate
Alaska Air Carriers Association,
Beluga Air, LLC, Trail Ridge Air, Regal
Air, Ward Air, Inc., and individual
commenters stated that the NPRM is not
needed due to existing requirements for
annual and 100-hour inspections in the
Federal Aviation Regulations.
The FAA does not agree that current
regulations require the same inspections
as those proposed in the NPRM. The
FAA acknowledges that some of the
tasks are in locations of the airplane
where 100-hour or annual inspections
require other inspections, but the
inspections proposed in this SNPRM are
focused on certain areas of the airplane
and more detailed than those covered in
the required annual or 100-hour
inspections. The inspections specified
in this SNPRM are part of a
supplemental inspection and corrosion
prevention program that is included in
Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1–2–5,
Revision 1. These inspection types and
intervals address locations or parts that
are not currently required to be
inspected as part of annual or 100-hour
inspections in existing regulations.
These new inspections and intervals are
needed to detect and address corrosion,
which could lead to structural failure
with consequent loss of control of the
airplane. The FAA has not changed this
SNPRM regarding this issue.
Request To Withdraw NPRM: Impact
on Small Entities
Alaska Air Carriers Association,
Alaska Seaplanes, Beluga Air, LLC,
Regal Air, Trail Ridge Air, Ward Air,
Inc., and individual commenters
questioned the statement in the
Regulatory Findings section of the
NPRM that the NPRM ‘‘[w]ould not
have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act.’’ Alaska Air Carriers Association,
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Alaska Seaplanes, Beluga Air, LLC,
Mountain Flying Services, Regal Air,
and Trail Ridge Air, noted that Alaska
tourism, fishing, hunting, and other
businesses would face an adverse
economic impact. Some of these
commenters noted that the costs of the
proposed requirements could put some
small or medium-sized businesses out of
business. Alaska Air Carriers
Association, Alaska Seaplanes, Beluga
Air, LLC, and several individual
commenters suggested that the NPRM
would waste resources or add an undue
burden for the small companies that
operate these airplanes.
The FAA acknowledges the
commenters’ concerns and infers that
the commenters are requesting that the
NPRM be withdrawn due to the
perceived adverse economic impact on
small entities. Under 14 CFR 39.1,
issuance of an AD is based on the
finding that an unsafe condition exists
or is likely to develop in aircraft of a
particular type design. An aging
airplane requires more attention during
maintenance procedures and, at times,
more frequent inspections of structural
components to detect damage due to
environmental deterioration, accidental
damage, and fatigue. The unsafe
condition addressed in this SNPRM
includes undetected corrosion, which
could lead to structural failure and
consequent loss of control of the
airplane. Inspections and repair are
therefore necessary to detect and correct
such corrosion before it leads to
structural failure. The FAA has not
changed this SNPRM regarding this
issue.
Regarding the question of the NPRM
having a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities,
the FAA has developed an IRFA for this
proposed action and a reason for issuing
this SNPRM is to solicit comments on
the IRFA.
Request To Withdraw NPRM: Lack of
Data on Corrosion-Related Accidents
Alaska Aircraft Sales and
Maintenance and an individual
commenter asked how many accidents
could be traced back to corrosion on
these airplanes. One individual
commenter added that in over 25 years
of performing maintenance, the
commenter had not seen any Model
DHC–2 airplanes show an unusual
tendency for corrosion or excessive
stress and added that, on average, there
is less corrosion on a Model DHC–2
airplane than is typical of airplanes
more than 10 years old. A different
individual commenter noted that in 37
years of experience, the commenter was
unaware of the affected airplanes having
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
accidents or incidents due to corrosion.
That individual commenter added that
these airplanes are painted before
assembly with corrosion-preventing
primer and are probably less prone to
corrosion than airplanes of the same age
that are painted on the outside after
assembly. Taquan Air stated that it is
unaware of accidents or failures
associated with corrosion on the
affected airplanes. The FAA infers that
the commenters are requesting that the
FAA withdraw the NPRM.
The FAA does not agree with the
commenters’ requests to withdraw the
NPRM. According to 14 CFR 39.5, the
issuance of an AD is based on the
finding that an unsafe condition exists
or is likely to exist or develop in other
products of the same type design. This
section of the Federal Aviation
Regulations does not specify that an
accident is necessary for the FAA to
determine that there is an unsafe
condition. In this case, the FAA
independently reviewed the MCAI and
related service information and
determined an unsafe condition exists
and an AD is needed to address that
unsafe condition. Further, it is within
the FAA’s authority and responsibility
to issue ADs to require actions to
address unsafe conditions that are not
otherwise being addressed (or are not
addressed adequately) by routine
maintenance procedures. In addition,
based upon detailed airplane tear-down
inspections performed by Viking (the
design approval holder), the FAA has
determined that the existing
maintenance procedures and
inspections will not adequately detect
corrosion. Although this SNPRM is not
tied to a specific corrosion related
accident, the FAA has determined that
such undetected corrosion could lead to
structural failure. The FAA has a
responsibility to issue ADs to correct
identified unsafe conditions in aircraft,
regardless of the location or cause. The
FAA has not changed this SNPRM
regarding this issue.
Request To Withdraw NPRM: No
Obligation To Adopt the Proposed AD
Alaska Air Carriers Association,
Alaska Seaplanes, Beluga Air LLC, Regal
Air, Trail Ridge Air, and individual
commenters requested that the FAA
withdraw the NPRM, explaining the
FAA has no obligation to enact the
NPRM simply because Transport
Canada enacted an AD. Some of these
commenters claimed that finalizing the
NPRM to a final rule would contradict
the FAA’s requirement to ‘‘encourage
and develop civil aeronautics’’ by
imposing substantial costs and efforts to
comply with that final rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Apr 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
The FAA disagrees with withdrawing
the NPRM. Although the FAA
acknowledges that it has no obligation
to adopt an AD to parallel the
requirements in the Transport Canada
AD, the FAA has a responsibility to
issue ADs to require actions to address
unsafe conditions that are not otherwise
being addressed. As previously stated,
the FAA independently reviewed the
MCAI and related service information
and determined an unsafe condition
exists and an AD is needed to address
that unsafe condition. The FAA may
address such unsafe conditions by
requiring revisions to maintenance
records as a condition under which
airplanes may continue to be operated.
Part of the FAA’s obligation to
‘‘encourage and develop civil
aeronautics’’ is to take any necessary
action to keep the existing aircraft fleet
safe, which includes the issuance of
ADs. The FAA has not changed this
SNPRM regarding this issue.
Request To Acknowledge Impacts on
Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
Alaska Air Carriers Association,
Alaska Seaplanes, Beluga Air LLC, and
individual commenters requested that
the FAA revise the NPRM to
acknowledge that intrastate aviation in
Alaska would be affected. Alaska
Seaplanes asserted that 13 local Alaska
businesses stated that the proposed AD
would put them out of business; the
commenter added that these businesses
are the lifeline to small and rural
communities not accessible by other
aircraft.
The FAA acknowledges the
commenters’ concerns. In light of the
heavy reliance on aviation for intrastate
transportation in Alaska, the FAA has
fully considered the effects of this
SNPRM (including costs to be borne by
affected operators) from the earliest
possible stages of AD development. The
NPRM was based on those
considerations, and was developed with
regard to minimizing the economic
impact on operators to the extent
possible, consistent with the safety
objectives of this SNPRM. In any event,
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 39) require operators to correct
an unsafe condition identified on an
airplane to ensure operation of that
airplane in an airworthy condition. The
FAA has determined that the need to
correct the unsafe conditions outweighs
any impact on aviation in Alaska. The
FAA has not changed this SNPRM
regarding this issue.
In addition, regarding the costs of this
SNPRM, the FAA has developed an
IRFA for this proposed action and a
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24929
reason for issuing this SNPRM is to
solicit comments on the IRFA.
Request To Supersede All Corrosion
ADs for the Affected Models
Alaska Air Carriers Association,
Beluga Air LLC, Mountail Flying
Services, Regal Air, Ward Air, Inc., and
individual commenters requested that
the NPRM be revised to supersede all
ADs related to corrosion prevention and
maintenance for the affected airplanes,
not just AD 64–09–03. An individual
noted that the NPRM conflicts with
more than just AD 64–09–03 and added
that AD 2008–11–11, Amendment 39–
15533 (73 FR 34611, June 18, 2008) (AD
2008–11–11) specifies a penetrant
inspection for cracks in the front spar
center section web of the tailplane,
while task C55–10–02 in Viking PSM 1–
2–5, Revision 1, allows using a
penetrant or an eddy current inspection,
which seems contradictory.
The FAA disagrees with the
commenters’ requests to supersede all
corrosion-related ADs for the affected
airplanes. The FAA has reviewed all
potentially related ADs against the
proposed requirements in this SNPRM
and determined that no other ADs need
to be superseded or rescinded. Any
other ADs involving inspecting for
corrosion on the affected airplanes
require either inspecting different parts
or locations on an airplane or the
inspections are not as in-depth or
repetitive; therefore they do not overlap
with the proposed inspections. This
includes AD 2008–11–11, which
requires inspecting a different part than
that in task C55–10–02 of Viking PSM
1–2–5, Revision 1. The FAA has not
changed this SNPRM regarding this
issue.
Request To Add Airplanes to Aging
Aircraft or Other Existing Rulemaking
Taquan Air and an individual
commenter requested that the unsafe
condition be addressed by adding these
airplanes to the Aging Aircraft rule (14
CFR 135.422), rather than through the
NPRM. The commenters noted that
doing so would evenly spread the
burden, rather than having different
corrosion control policies for different
airplane models. Taquan Air noted that
Alaska has been exempted from the
Aging Aircraft rule. Both commenters
suggested that 14 CFR part 43 appendix
D (which specifies the scope and detail
of items to be included in annual and
100-hour inspections) be rewritten to
address corrosion. The individual
commenter added that 14 CFR 135.422
should apply to all part 135 operators,
with a similar 14 CFR regulation
applicable to part 91 operators.
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
24930
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
The FAA disagrees with adding this
to the Aging Aircraft rule. The proposed
action would address a known unsafe
condition on the structure of Viking
Model DHC–2 Mk. I, DHC–2 Mk. II, and
DHC–2 Mk. III airplanes. If the FAA
finds that other aircraft have similar
issues to the affected airplanes, the FAA
would look at appropriate rulemaking
for those aircraft also. For the Viking
Model DHC–2 Mk. I, DHC–2 Mk. II, and
DHC–2 Mk. III airplanes, as stated
previously, the FAA has determined
that annual and 100-hour inspections
are currently not adequate to address
the unsafe condition identified in this
SNPRM. The FAA has a responsibility
to address an unsafe condition that is
not addressed by general maintenance
by issuing an AD. Therefore, the
proposed actions of this SNPRM are the
appropriate way of addressing the
unsafe condition. Adding inspections
for corrosion to 14 CFR part 43
appendix D to address the unsafe
condition identified in this SNPRM is
not appropriate because that corrective
action would not be limited to the
products affected by this unsafe
condition. 14 CFR part 43 appendix D
contains general inspections that are not
specific to individual products.
Therefore, issuing an AD is the
appropriate vehicle for addressing this
identified unsafe condition. The FAA
has not changed this SNPRM regarding
this issue.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Request To Revise the Number of
Affected Airplanes
Alaska Air Transporters, Alaska
Seaplanes, Athens Insurance, Enchanted
Lake Lodge, Tailwind Aviation, and
individual commenters requested that
the Costs of Compliance section in the
NPRM be revised to reflect that more
than 135 airplanes of U.S. registry
would be affected. Several of these
commenters suggested that 382
airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected, while one individual
commenter stated that there are ‘‘more
like 400 airplanes involved.’’ A second
individual commenter noted that many
of these airplanes have been erroneously
registered as Model L–20A airplanes
due to incorrect procedures when the
airplanes were imported or converted
from military to civilian use.
The FAA agrees with the commenters’
request to revise the number of affected
airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA has
re-evaluated the data and determined
that 409 airplanes of U.S. registry is a
better estimate. The FAA notes that
there are no airplanes on the U.S.
registry listed as Model L–20A
airplanes. The FAA has revised the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Apr 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
Costs of Compliance section of this
SNPRM accordingly.
Request To Revise Costs of Compliance:
Labor Rate
Alaska Air Transporters, Athens
Insurance, Enchanted Lake Lodge,
Tailwind Aviation, and several
individual commenters requested that
the FAA revise the labor rate in the
Costs of Compliance section of the
NPRM. The commenters noted that
current labor rates are anywhere from
$110 to $150 per hour. Several of these
commenters added that the proposed
costs do not consider airplane
downtime or the current shortage of
qualified mechanics able to do the
inspections.
Additionally, Alaska Seaplanes
asserted that three operators have
complied with the service information
referenced in the NPRM and the cost of
compliance was $65,000 to $125,000,
not the $29,070 per airplane estimated
in the NPRM.
The FAA disagrees with the
commenters’ requests to revise the labor
rate in the Costs of Compliance section
of this SNPRM. The FAA notes that the
labor rate of $85 per hour is provided
by the FAA Office of Aviation Policy
and Plans for the FAA to use when
estimating the labor costs of complying
with AD requirements. Regarding the
comments on down-time and labor
shortages, the FAA acknowledges the
commenters’ concerns. The FAA
recognizes that in accomplishing the
requirements of any AD, operators
might incur ‘‘indirect’’ costs in addition
to the ‘‘direct’’ costs that are reflected in
the cost analysis presented in the AD.
However, the cost analysis in ADs
typically does not include indirect costs
since the FAA does not have sufficient
information to evaluate these costs
including additional down-time and
loss of revenue. The FAA has not
changed this SNPRM regarding this
issue.
Request To Revise Requirements Based
on Airplane Usage Conditions
Alaska Aircraft Sales and
Maintenance, Alaska Air Transporters,
Athens Insurance, Enchanted Lake
Lodge, Mountain Flying Service,
Tailwind Aviation, Taquan Air, and
several individuals requested that the
NPRM be revised to have different
requirements based on how the airplane
is used. Alaska Aircraft Sales and
Maintenance suggested that the NPRM
penalized operators by applying one
program to all operating environments.
Several of these commenters noted that
airplanes used on wheels or only in
freshwater would have less exposure to
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
factors causing corrosion than airplanes
operated in saltwater and suggested the
requirements should be revised
accordingly. Mountain Flying Services
noted that its airplane is kept in a
heated hanger when not in use, has been
rebuilt, and has had minimal time in
water, which makes it less susceptible
to corrosion. An individual commenter
suggested the NPRM should allow both
specificity and flexibility based on
atmospheric conditions, saltwater
exposure, and time on floats.
The FAA disagrees with the
commenters’ requests to change the
NPRM based on different airplane
operational usage. There is no current
requirement to track the hours spent
flying in different conditions or types of
water. Additionally, operators may not
know the entire flight history of an
airplane. Without this detailed
knowledge of each airplane, it would be
impossible for the FAA to develop a
special set of inspections based on
airplane usage conditions. However,
operators may submit a proposal for
revised requirements by requesting an
alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) using the procedures specified
in paragraph (i) of this SNPRM. The
FAA has not changed this SNPRM
regarding this issue.
Request To Clarify Process for Creating
Corrosion Prevention and Control
Program
Alaska Air Carriers Association,
Alaska Aircraft Sales and Maintenance,
Regal Air, Taquan Air, Trail Ridge Air
Inc., and several individual commenters
asked for clarity regarding the process of
creating and getting approval for a
corrosion prevention and control
program. Alaska Aircraft Sales and
Maintenance asked what the guidance
will be for an operator who chooses to
write its own program versus getting an
AMOC. Alaska Aircraft Sales and
Maintenance asked if any maintenance
inspector could approve the program or
if it would have to go to the aircraft
certification office (ACO), and further
questioned how the operator would
comply in a timely manner if ACO
approval is delayed. One individual
commenter noted that the proposed AD
does not include a specific definition of
what the program would require, only
that it should line up with an undated
revision of a Viking maintenance
manual. That same individual
commenter added that the affected
airplanes are already maintained
following maintenance instructions and
recommended practices (and
compliance times when scheduling
permits) in Viking Service Bulletin V2/
0011, Revision NC, dated November 28,
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
2019 (Viking Service Bulletin V2/0011,
Revision NC), which is related to the
Viking maintenance manual, so
operators should not be held to a higher
level of accountability. A second
individual commenter noted that it
appears the NPRM would give Viking
PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, the same
authority and weight as an
airworthiness limitation, or operators
could write their own program and get
it approved by the FAA. That same
individual commenter questioned what
would happen when Viking PSM 1–2–
5, Revision 1, is revised and contradicts
the AD requirements. A third individual
commenter suggested it is unfair for the
FAA to require operators to develop a
program without the proper
qualifications, experience, or training.
That same individual commenter
suggested that the lack of guidance and
procedures would leave room for
interpretation, leading to multiple
exhanges with the FAA and an everevolving process that could lead to
significant delays and could ground
airplanes. A fourth individual
commenter added that trying to design
a manual to be approved by several
different parties could lead to confusion
for both the operator submitting the
manual and the FAA, and suggested
targeting the area of concern and
inspections based on existing Advisory
Circular (AC) 43–4B, Corrosion Control
for Aircraft, dated September 11, 2018.
Taquan Air asked how long it would
take to get a program approved. Taquan
Air also asked if the Viking corrosion
control program is an approved method
for establishing a corrosion prevention
and control program. Taquan Air
suggested that the FAA establish areas
that need to be in the program and an
outline of expectations, so operators can
get it correct.
The FAA acknowledges the
commenters’ concerns regarding the
creation of a corrosion prevention and
control program. To make compliance
easier for operators and eliminate the
need to create an FAA-approved
corrosion prevention and control
program, the FAA simplified the
proposed actions. This SNPRM would
require incorporating the inspections in
Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1–2–5,
Revision 1, into the existing
maintenance records. In Note 1 to
paragraph (g) of the NPRM, the use of
Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, was
identified as an acceptable means of
compliance but was not required to be
used. That note has been removed from
this SNPRM and the subsequent note
that appeared as Note 2 to paragraph (g)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Apr 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
has been has re-identified as Note 1 to
paragraph (g) in this proposed AD.
The FAA acknowledges that Viking
Service Bulletin V2/0011, Revision NC,
is related to this SNPRM because it lists
the inspection tasks and descriptions
that are specified in Viking PSM 1–2–
5, Revision 1, and specifies to
accomplish those tasks following the
procedures in Viking PSM 1–2–5,
Revision 1. Note 1 to paragraph (g) in
this proposed AD refers to Viking
Service Bulletin V2/0011, Revision NC,
as an additional source of information.
If Transport Canada or the FAA
determines that any revised tasks in a
future Viking PSM are necessary to
address an unsafe condition, the FAA
will consider future rulemaking to
require operators to accomplish those
tasks. The FAA also acknowledges the
commenters’ concerns regarding delays
and timeliness of approving a corrosion
prevention and control program,
however, since this proposed AD would
require operators to incorporate the
inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking
PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, into the existing
maintenance records, those concerns
should be mitigated.
Request To Remove or Revise Certain
Inspection Requirements
An individual commenter stated that
Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, is
duplicative of Viking PSM 1–2–2, DHC
2 Beaver Maintenance Manual, Revision
4, dated March 28, 2018 (Viking PSM 1–
2–2, Revision 4), and provided a
summary of inspections that are already
included in Viking PSM 1–2–2,
Revision 4, and other service
information. The commenter added that
the new inspections in Viking PSM 1–
2–5, Revision 1, are non-destuctive
testing (NDT) inspections that in Canada
are issued with a pass/fall certificate.
The commenter added that the pass/fail
documentation does not contain any
actual measured results, therefore the
statistical predictive modeling for time
to failure (which would allow operators
to plan replacement/overhaul activities)
cannot be accomplished. The
commenter provided several suggestions
including: Viking be required to supply
measured results and predictive
indicators to operators; duplicate
inspection points related to Viking PSM
1–2–2, Revision 4, be removed from the
NPRM; a recommended order of
operations for the inspections be
provided so they are streamlined; and
that ADs be combined for simplification
of maintenance.
The FAA acknowledges the
commenter’s concerns about potential
duplication between Viking PSM 1–2–2,
Revision 4, and Viking PSM 1–2–5,
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24931
Revision 1. However, the inspections in
these two documents are designed to
complement each other. Viking PSM 1–
2–5, Revision 1, refers to Viking PSM 1–
2–2, Revision 4, and other documents.
The recommended supplemental
inspection and control program in
Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, does not
replace any aspect of the current
inspection program that is described in
Viking PSM 1–2–2, Revision 4, or other
referenced documents. The FAA further
notes that the FAA cannot use an AD to
require Viking to supply results,
indicators, or other information to
operators, although individual operators
could request that information from
Viking. The FAA has not changed this
SNPRM regarding this issue.
Request To Allow Phase-in of
Inspections
Alaska Air Transporters, Alaska
Aircraft Sales and Maintenance, Athens
Insurance, Enchanted Lake Lodge,
Mountain Flying Services, Tailwind
Aviation, and two individual
commenters requested that the NPRM
be revised to allow a phase-in period for
the proposed new requirements. Several
of these commenters noted that fully
implementing the Viking PSM 1–2–5,
Revision 1, and inspections in one year
would double or triple their budgeted
maintenance costs. Several of these
commenters suggested allowing a 5-year
incremental implementation of the
manual, with different inspections
required each year. One individual
commenter noted that the airplane fleet
is not that large, and flexibility could be
afforded, which would allow operators
to use multiple seasons of revenue to
fund the inspections. Alaska Aircraft
Sales and Maintenance noted that the 8month deadline for initial inspections is
too restrictive and should be phased-in,
similar to Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision
1, or aligned to be performed at the
same time as other required service
actions. Alaska Aircraft Sales and
Maintenance added that operators
should be provided credit for the initial
inspection if they have already done a
given task.
The FAA partially agrees with the
commenters’ requests to extend the
compliance times. Paragraph (g) of this
proposed AD would require
incorporating the inspections in Parts 2
and 3 of Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1,
into the existing maintenance records
and doing each initial task within 6
months after the effective date of the
final rule or at the threshold for each
applicable task specified in Part 3 of
Viking Product Support Manual PSM 1–
2–5, Revision 1, whichever occurs later.
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
24932
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
The FAA disagrees with increasing the
compliance time up to 5 years.
Regarding Alaska Aircraft Sales and
Maintenance’s request for credit, the
FAA agrees to provide clarification.
Paragraph (f) of this proposed AD states
to accomplish the required actions
within the compliance times specified,
‘‘unless already done.’’ Therefore, if
operators have accomplished the actions
required for compliance specified in
this SNPRM before the effective date of
the final rule, no further action is
necessary, unless the task is a repetitive
action and then it would be required at
the repetitive interval. The FAA has not
revised this SNPRM in this regard.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Request To Allow Mechanics To
Perform Certain Tasks
An individual requested that
‘‘properly trained mechanics’’ be
allowed to perform the NDT inspections
(tasks). Ward Air requested that an ‘‘inhouse trained aircraft technician’’ using
‘‘modern technology’’ be allowed to do
the required ultrasonic testing rather
than requiring an operator to hire an
outside Level II trained technician to
perform the testing.
The FAA partially agrees with the
commenters’ requests. Operators can
use an in-house properly trained
individual with qualifications
equivalent to Level II or Level III to do
the NDT inspections. FAA Advisory
Circular 65–31B, Training,
Qualification, and Certification of
Nondestructive Inspection Personnel,
dated February 24, 2014, contains FAAapproved Level II and Level III
qualification standards critieria for
inspection personnel doing NDT
inspections. The FAA does not agree
that this SNPRM specifies a requirement
to hire outside properly trained Level II
NDT personnel. Viking PSM 1–2–5,
Revision 1, specifies that personnel
certified as Level II or higher, as
acceptable to the operator’s cognizant
airworthiness authority, can do the NDT
inspections. The FAA has not changed
this SNPRM regarding this issue.
Request To Require Reporting to FAA
Not Viking
An individual commenter requested
that the NPRM be revised so that the
results of any required reporting are sent
to the FAA through the FAA’s service
difficulty reporting system, and not sent
to a foreign company (Viking) that is not
overseen by the FAA.
The FAA disagrees with the
commenter’s request. Transport Canada
is the State of Design Authority and
Viking is the type certificate holder for
Model DHC–2 Mk. I, DHC–2 Mk. II, and
DHC–2 Mk. III airplanes. As such, they
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Apr 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
should be evaluating the reports to
determine if any additional actions
should be required to address the unsafe
condition and through the appropriate
bilateral airworthiness agreement will
share such information with the FAA.
For these reasons, the reports should be
sent to Viking. The FAA has not
changed this SNPRM regarding this
issue.
Revised Estimated Costs of Compliance
in This SNPRM
Based on the new requirement
specified in paragraph (g) of this
proposed AD to incorporate the
inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking
PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, into the existing
maintenance records, the FAA has
revised the estimated costs associated
with paragraph (g) of this AD from 342
work-hours to 1 work-hour. The
proposed requirements to establish a
corrosion prevention program and the
initial inspection tasks that were
included in the NPRM were removed
from this SNPRM.
FAA’s Determination
These products have been approved
by the aviation authority of another
country and are approved for operation
in the United States. Pursuant to the
FAA’s bilateral agreement with this
State of Design Authority, it has notified
the FAA of the unsafe condition
described in the MCAI described above.
The FAA is issuing this SNPRM after
determining that the unsafe condition
described previously is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same
type design. At the request of some
commenters, the FAA is reopening the
comment period of this SNPRM to allow
the public the chance to comment on
the economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This SNPRM
also contains the changes discussed
previously.
Proposed AD Requirements in This
SNPRM
This proposed AD would retain none
of the requirements of AD 64–09–03.
This proposed AD would require,
within 90 days after the effective date of
the final rule, incorporating into the
existing maintenance records the
actions specified in Parts 2 and 3 of
Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, and
doing each initial task within 6 months
after the effective date of the proposed
AD or at the threshold for each
applicable task specified in Part 3 of
Viking Product Support Manual PSM 1–
2–5, Revision 1, whichever occurs later.
This proposed AD would also require
reporting corrosion findings to Viking.
Because the inspection of the aileron
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
balance weight arms required by AD 64–
09–03 would be included in the revision
of the existing maintenance records, this
proposed AD would supersede AD 64–
09–03.
ADs Mandating Airworthiness
Limitations (ALS)
The FAA has previously mandated
airworthiness limitations by issuing
ADs that require revising the ALS of the
existing maintenance manual or
instructions for continued airworthiness
to incorporate new or revised
inspections. This proposed AD,
however, would require establishing
and incorporating new inspections into
the existing maintenance records
required by 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2) or
135.439(a)(2) for your airplane. The
FAA does not intend this as a
substantive change. Requiring
incorporation of the new ALS
requirements into the existing
maintenance records, rather than
requiring individual repetitive
inspections and replacements, allows
operators to record AD compliance once
after updating the existing maintenance
records, rather than recording
compliance after every inspection and
part replacement.
Related Service Information Under 1
CFR Part 51
The FAA reviewed Viking PSM 1–2–
5, Revision 1, which specifies
procedures for inspecting locations of
the airplane that are particularly
susceptible to corrosion-related
degradation and includes repetitive
inspection intervals, defines the
different levels of corrosion, and
provides corrective action if corrosion is
found.
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.
Other Related Service Information
The FAA reviewed Viking Service
Bulletin V2/0011, Revision NC. This
service information provides a list of
new inspection tasks that have been
added to the DHC–2 supplementary
inspection and corrosion control
program, Viking PSM–1–2–5, Revision
1.
Impact on Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
In light of the heavy reliance on
aviation for intrastate transportation in
Alaska, the FAA has fully considered
the effects of this SNPRM (including
costs to be borne by affected operators)
from the earliest possible stages of AD
development. As previously stated, 14
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
CFR part 39 requires operators to correct
an unsafe condition identified on an
airplane to ensure operation of that
airplane in an airworthy condition. The
FAA has determined that the need to
correct corrosion-related degradation in
aging aircraft, which could lead to
structural failure with consequent loss
of control of the airplane, outweighs any
impact on aviation in Alaska.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Costs of Compliance
The FAA estimates that this AD, if
adopted as proposed, would affect 409
airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA also
estimates that it would take about 1
work-hour per airplane at a labor rate of
$85 per work-hour to revise the existing
maintenance records.
Based on these figures, the FAA
estimates the cost of this proposed AD
on U.S. operators to be $34,765 or $85
per airplane.
The FAA estimates it would take
about 1 work-hour to report any Level
2 corrosion found during the proposed
initial or subsequent inspections or any
Level 3 corrosion found during the
proposed initial or subsequent
inspections, for an estimated cost of $85
per airplane.
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 take
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:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Apr 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
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, Public Law 96–354, 94 Stat. 1164
(5 U.S.C. 601–612) (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 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 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 RFA. 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 RFA, 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24933
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 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
The NPRM proposed to supersede AD
64–09–03, which applies to all de
Havilland (type certificate now held by
Viking) Model DHC–2 ‘‘Beaver’’
airplanes, because after the FAA issued
AD 64–09–03 Transport Canada
superseded its MCAI to identify specific
locations of an airplane that must be
inspected to ensure corrosion-related
degradation does not result in an unsafe
condition. The NPRM proposed to
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
24934
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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.
require establishing a corrosion
prevention and control program to
identify and correct corrosion,
completing all of the initial tasks
identified in the program, and reporting
corrosion findings to Viking. The
proposed corrosion prevention and
control program would incude the
inspection of the aileron balance weight
arms required by AD 64–09–03.
3. All Federal Rules That May
Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict
2. Objectives and Legal Basis of the
Proposed Rule
The objective of the actions proposed
in this SNPRM is to meet the same
safety intent as those actions proposed
in the NPRM. The FAA issued the
NPRM 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
Viking Model DHC–2 Mk. I, DHC–2 Mk.
II, and DHC–2 Mk. III airplanes.
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
The 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 (2022) 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 Civil Aircraft Registry
shows 409 Model DHC–2 Mk. I, DHC–
2 Mk. II, and DHC–2 Mk. III airplanes
that would be affected by this SNPRM.
These 409 airplanes are registered to
235 private businesses, 76 individuals,
and 3 government agencies. The 76
individuals and 3 government agencies
are excluded from this analysis as the
RFA does not apply to individuals and
the 3 government agencies are not small
entities as defined by the RFA.2
Three hundred nineteen (319)
airplanes are owned and operated by
235 private entities. A sample of 50
private businesses was randomly
selected for the analysis.3 Of the 50
sampled entities, 45 were found to be
small. The results of the cost impact
analysis for these 45 small entities is
shown in Table 1 and will be discussed
in the following section.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
TABLE 1—COST IMPACT ON SMALL ENTITIES
DHC–2
A/C
Revenues
($1,000)
Cost/
revenue
(%)
Size
standard
NAICS industry
721214
$8 mn .......
0.4
541990
$17 mn .....
510.0
0.5
551112
$40 mn .....
110
110
170.0
170.0
0.2
0.2
541110
532490
$13.5 mn ..
$35 mn .....
3
113
510.0
0.4
481219
$22 mn .....
LLC .....................
1
117
170.0
0.1
532411
$40 mn .....
MUSTANG HIGH FLIGHT LLC ...
LLC .....................
1
127
170.0
0.1
334511
1,250 emp
FLIGHT MANAGEMENT LLC ......
NEWHALEN LODGE INC ............
LLC .....................
Corporation .........
2
3
161
165
340.0
510.0
0.2
0.3
561110
721199
$11 mn .....
$8 mn .......
4R AVIATION LLC .......................
RAINBOW KING LODGE INC .....
LLC .....................
Corporation .........
1
2
177
209
170.0
340.0
0.1
0.2
336411
721199
1,500 emp
$8 mn .......
DOYON AIRCRAFT LEASING
LLC.
LLC .....................
1
250
170.0
0.1
532411
$40 mn .....
KENMORE CREW LEASING INC
TRUSTEE.
COMANCHE FIGHTERS LLC .....
Corporation .........
1
278
170.0
0.1
532490
$35 mn .....
LLC .....................
1
301
170.0
0.1
813930
$14.5 mn ..
Recreational and Vacation
Camps (except Campgrounds).
All Other Professional, Scientific
and Technical Services.
Offices of Other Holding Companies.
Offices of Lawyers.
Other Comm’l & Ind. Machinery
and Equip. Rental & Leasing.
Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation.
Comm’l Air, Rail, & Water
Transp. Equip. Rental and
Leasing.
Search, Detect., Nav., Guid.,
Aero., & Naut. Systems & Inst.
Mfg.
Office Administrative Services.
All Other Traveler Accommodation.
Aircraft Manufacturing.
All Other Traveler Accommodation.
Comm’l Air, Rail, & Water
Transp. Equip. Rental and
Leasing.
Other Comm’l & Ind. Machinery
and Equip. Rental & Leasing.
Labor Unions and Similar Labor
Organizations.
Operator
FAA registry type
ALASKAS FISHING UNLIMITED
INC.
DOUGLAS AVIATION LTD ..........
Non-Citizen Corp
1
79
$170.0
0.2
Corporation .........
2
90
340.0
NORTHSTAR HOLDINGS LLC ...
LLC .....................
3
110
RHK OF KANSAS ........................
SUMMIT LEASING LLC ..............
Corporation .........
LLC .....................
1
1
JESPERSEN AIRCRAFT SERVICES INC.
KATMAI AIR LLC .........................
Corporation .........
1 Small Business Administration (SBA). 2022.
Table of Size Standards. Effective July 14, 2022.
https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-sizestandards.
2 Two airplanes are registered to the U.S.
Department of the Interior. Five airplanes are
registered to the United States Forest Service,
within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Two
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Apr 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
Cost
NAICS
code
airplanes are registered to the State of Alaska to the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game. These
government agencies and are not small entities
under the RFA.
3 The sample was selected by shuffling the order
of the list of 409 DHC–2 airplanes in the FAA
Registry and going down the randomized list. If
revenue and employee count data were available, it
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
was included in the sample; otherwise, it was
excluded. This process was repeated until 50
entities, for which revenue and employee data were
available, had been added to the sample. The
shuffling was accomplished by giving each entry in
the registry an index value between 0 and 1 using
Excel’s RAND function. The entries were then
sorted by that index value to randomize their order.
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
24935
TABLE 1—COST IMPACT ON SMALL ENTITIES—Continued
DHC–2
A/C
Revenues
($1,000)
Cost/
revenue
(%)
Size
standard
NAICS industry
481111
1,500 emp
0.1
481211
1,500 emp
170.0
0.0
481219
$22 mn .....
500
170.0
0.0
532490
$35 mn .....
3
720
510.0
0.1
721214
$8 mn .......
Corporation .........
3
750
510.0
0.1
481111
1,500 emp
LLC .....................
1
750
170.0
0.0
532000
$8 mn .......
LLC .....................
2
956
340.0
0.0
481211
1,500 emp
Operator
FAA registry type
Cost
BAY AIR INC ...............................
Corporation .........
1
307
170.0
0.1
COYOTE AIR LLC .......................
LLC .....................
2
310
$340.0
KINGFISHER AIR INC .................
Corporation .........
1
366
ASSOCIATED LEASING LLC .....
LLC .....................
1
TIKCHIK NARROWS LODGE
INC.
NORTHWEST SEAPLANES INC
Corporation .........
NAICS
code
SNOW MOUNTAIN ENTERPRISES LLC.
ISLAND WINGS AIR SERVICE
LLC.
TVPX AIRCRAFT SOLUTIONS
INC TRUSTEE.
SHELDON AIR SERVICE LLC ....
Corporation .........
3
1,157
510.0
0.0
336310
1,000 emp
LLC .....................
1
1,400
170.0
0.0
481219
$22 mn .....
TALKEETNA AIR TAXI INC ........
Corporation .........
1
1,635
170.0
0.0
481219
$22 mn .....
NO SEE UM LODGE INC ...........
Corporation .........
3
2,036
510.0
0.0
721214
$8 mn .......
WARD AIR INC ............................
Corporation .........
4
2,191
680.0
0.0
481219
$22 mn .....
HISTORIC FLIGHT FOUNDATION.
LAKE HAVASU SEAPLANES
LLC.
RDJ BROTHERS TRUCKING
INC.
SEAWIND AVIATION INC ...........
Corporation .........
1
2,500
340.0
0.0
712110
$30 mn .....
Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation.
Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transp.
Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation.
Other Comm’l & Ind. Machinery
and Equip. Rental & Leasing.
Recreational and Vacation
Camps (except Campgrounds).
Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation.
Rental and Leasing Services,
N.F.S.
Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transp.
Motor Vehicle Gasoline Engine
and Engine Parts Mfg.
Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation.
Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation.
Recreational and Vacation
Camps (except Campgrounds).
Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation.
Museums.
LLC .....................
1
2,500
170.0
0.0
611000
$8 mn .......
Educational Services, N.F.S.
Corporation .........
1
2,500
170.0
0.0
236000
$39.5 mn ..
Construction of buildings, N.F.S.
Corporation .........
2
2,500
170.0
0.0
481211
1,500 emp
TIKCHIK AIRVENTURES LLC ....
LLC .....................
1
2,500
170.0
0.0
481211
1,500 emp
WOLF TRAIL LODGE INC ..........
ANDREW AIRWAYS INC ............
Corporation .........
Corporation .........
1
3
2,500
2,576
170.0
510.0
0.0
0.0
721000
485999
$8 mn .......
$16.5 mn ..
ALASKAS ENCHANTED LAKE
LODGE INC.
Corporation .........
2
2,729
340.0
0.0
721310
$12.5 mn ..
RAINBOW RIVER LODGE LLC ..
LLC .....................
2
4,000
340.0
0.0
721214
$8 mn .......
K BAY AIR LLC ...........................
LLC .....................
1
4,427
170.0
0.0
481219
$22 mn .....
RAPIDS CAMP LODGE INC .......
Corporation .........
1
7,000
170.0
0.0
713990
$8 mn .......
PROGRESSIVE PLASTICS INC
Corporation .........
1
7,500
170.0
0.0
326199
750 emp ...
BROWN HELICOPTER INC ........
Corporation .........
1
9,000
170.0
0.0
336412
1,500 emp
PERRYCOOK FLIGHT SERVICES LLC.
KOMRO INTERNATIONAL LLC ..
LLC .....................
1
12,500
170.0
0.0
481211
1,500 emp
LLC .....................
1
14,100
170.0
0.0
423820
125 emp ...
Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transp.
Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transp.
Accommodation, N.F.S.
All Other Transit and Ground
Passenger Transportation.
Rooming & Boarding Houses,
Dormitories, and Workers’
Camps.
Recreational and Vacation
Camps (except Campgrounds).
Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation.
All Other Amusement and Recreation Industries.
All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing.
Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts
Manufacturing.
Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transp.
Farm & Garden Machinery &
Equip. Merchant Wholesalers.
Poured Concrete Foundation and
Structure Contractors.
Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation.
CONCRETE WORKS OF COLORADO INC.
KENMORE AIR HARBOR LLC ...
Corporation .........
1
16,190
170.0
0.0
238110
$16.5 mn ..
LLC .....................
9
51,500
1,530.0
0.0
481111
1,500 emp
Total ......................................
Mean .....................................
Median ..................................
.............................
.............................
.............................
80
................
................
$161,997
3,600
956
13,600
302
170
................
0.1
0.0
................
................
................
..................
..................
..................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Notes:
1. The size standard is the maximum size for the NAICS industry considered by the Small Business Administration to be a small entity.
2. AD costs per airplane are 1 work-hour × $85 = $85 + $85 reporting costs for initial inspection, for a total of $170.
3. All percentage figures are rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent. All 0.0% figures represent values below 0.1%, but above 0%.
5. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping,
and Other Compliance Requirements
The FAA estimated that this AD, if
adopted as proposed, would take about
1 work-hour per airplane at a labor rate
of $85 per work-hour incorporate the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Apr 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking
PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, into the existing
maintenance records and comply with
the initial inspection tasks of the
program, plus $85 per airplane to report
any corrosion found during the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
proposed initial inspections, for an
estimated total cost of $170 per airplane.
The estimated cost of this proposed
AD, per small entity, is shown in the
‘‘Cost’’ column of Table 1 and cost
impact is measured by cost as a
percentage of revenues. As the table
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
24936
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
shows, the mean cost impact is 0.1% of
annual revenues,4 while the median
cost impact of less than 0.1% shows no
significant impact on any of the small
entities. This impact did not vary with
firm size; the largest cost impact was
only 0.5%, which is still not considered
significant. Therefore, the FAA finds
that the proposed AD would not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
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.
Regulatory Findings
The FAA determined that this
proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order
13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866,
and
(2) Would not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the RFA.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 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
64–09–03, Amendment 718 (29 FR
5390, April 22, 1964); and
■ b. Adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
■
■
4 These revenue data come from online sources
such as zoominfo.com, opencorporates.com,
buzzfile.com, manta.com, allbiz.com, and
lookupcompanyrevenue.com.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Apr 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier Inc. and
de Havilland Inc.): Docket No. FAA–
2022–0190; Project Identifier 2019–CE–
048–AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
The FAA must receive comments on this
airworthiness directive (AD) by June 9, 2023.
(b) Affected ADs
This AD replaces AD 64–09–03,
Amendment 718 (29 FR 5390, April 22,
1964).
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to Viking Air Limited
(type certificate previously held by
Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.)
Model DHC–2 Mk. I, DHC–2 Mk. II, and
DHC–2 Mk. III airplanes, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category.
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)
Code 2000, Airframe.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI
describes the unsafe condition as corrosionrelated degradation in aging aircraft. The
FAA is issuing this AD to detect and address
corrosion, which could lead to structural
failure with consequent loss of control of the
airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(g) Required Actions
(1) Within 90 days after the effective date
of this AD, incorporate into the existing
maintenance records required by 14 CFR
91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2), as applicable
for your airplane, the actions and associated
thresholds and intervals, including life
limits, specified in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking
DHC–2 Beaver Supplemental Inspection and
Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1–2–5,
Revision 1, dated January 10, 2019 (Viking
PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1). Do each initial task
within 6 months after the effective date of
this AD or at the threshold for each
applicable task specified in Part 3 of Viking
Product Support Manual PSM 1–2–5,
Revision 1, whichever occurs later. Where
Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, specifies
contacting Viking for instructions on forward
and rear fin attachment bolt replacement,
inspection, and installation, and for a
disposition regarding attachment bolts, this
AD requires contacting the FAA, Transport
Canada, or Viking’s Transport Canada Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by
the DOA, the approval must include the
DOA-authorized signature.
Note 1 to paragraph (g): Viking DHC–2
Beaver Service Bulletin V2/0011, Revision
NC, dated November 28, 2019, contains
additional information related to this AD.
(2) After the action required by paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD has been done, no
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
alternative actions and associated thresholds
and intervals, including life limits, are
allowed unless they are approved as
specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(h) Reporting
(1) For inspections done after the effective
date of this AD, report to Viking any Level
2 or Level 3 corrosion, as specified in Viking
PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, at the times specified
in and in accordance with part 3, paragraph
5, of Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1.
(2) For inspections done before the
effective date of this AD, within 30 days after
the effective date of this AD report to Viking
any Level 2 or Level 3 corrosion, as specified
in Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, in
accordance with part 3, paragraph 5, of
Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1.
(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, New York ACO Branch,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in § 39.19. In accordance with § 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 New York ACO Branch,
mail it to ATTN: Program Manager,
Continuing Operational Safety, at the address
identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD or
email to: 9-avs-nyaco-cos@faa.gov. If mailing
information, also submit information by
email.
(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.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable
level of safety may be used for any repair,
modification, or alteration required by this
AD if it is approved specifically for this AD
by the Manager, New York ACO Branch,
FAA.
(j) Additional Information
(1) Refer to the MCAI from Transport
Canada, AD CF–2019–25, dated July 5, 2019,
for related information. This Transport
Canada AD may be found in the AD docket
at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA–
2022–0190.
(2) For more information about this AD,
contact James Delisio, Continued Operational
Safety Program Manager, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (516) 228–
7321; email: 9-avs-nyaco-cos@faa.gov.
(3) Service information identified in this
AD that is not incorporated by reference is
available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (k)(3) and (4) of this AD.
(k) 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) Viking DHC–2 Beaver Supplemental
Inspection and Corrosion Control Manual,
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 2023 / Proposed Rules
PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, dated January 10,
2019.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Viking Air Limited
Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way,
Sidney, British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5;
phone: (800) 663–8444; fax: (250) 656–0673;
email: technical.support@vikingair.com;
website: vikingair.com/support/servicebulletins.
(4) You may view this service information
at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, MO 64106. 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:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.
Issued on April 13, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–08551 Filed 4–24–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. FAA–2023–0985; Airspace
Docket No. 23–ASO–16]
RIN 2120–AA66
Amendment of Class E Airspace;
Cross City, FL
This action proposes to
amend Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface
for Cross City Airport, Cross City, FL, as
a new instrument approach procedure
has been designed for this airport. This
action would also update this airport’s
geographic coordinates to coincide with
the FAA’s database.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 9, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified
by FAA Docket No. FAA–2023–0985
and Airspace Docket No. 23–ASO–16
using any of the following methods:
* Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
* Mail: Send comments to Docket
Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Apr 24, 2023
Jkt 259001
invited on the proposal’s overall
regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related
aspects. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the
proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data. To ensure the docket
does not contain duplicate comments,
commenters should submit only once if
comments are filed electronically, or
commenters should send only one copy
of written comments if comments are
filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all
comments it receives and a report
summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning
this proposed rulemaking. Before acting
on this proposal, the FAA will consider
all comments it receives on or before the
closing date for comments. The FAA
will consider comments filed after the
comment period has closed if it is
possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. The FAA may change
this proposal in light of the comments
it receives.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking
process. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL–
14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
Comments Invited
Availability of NPRMs
An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov.
Recently published rulemaking
documents can be accessed through the
FAA’s web page at www.faa.gov/air_
traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
You may review the public docket
containing the proposal, any comments
received, and any final disposition in
person in the Dockets Office (see
ADDRESSES section for address and
phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except for Federal holidays. An informal
docket may also be examined between
8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except for Federal
holidays at the office of the Eastern
Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Room 350, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA
30337.
The FAA invites interested persons to
participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written comments, data, or
views. Comments are specifically
Incorporation by Reference
Class E airspace designations are
published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA
Order JO 7400.11, Airspace
Authority for This Rulemaking
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Room W12–140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC
20590–0001.
* Hand Delivery or Courier: Take
comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12–140 of the West Building
Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except for Federal holidays.
* Fax: Fax comments to Docket
Operations at (202) 493–2251.
Docket: Background documents or
comments received may be read at
www.regulations.gov anytime. Follow
the online instructions for accessing the
docket or go to the Docket Operations in
Room W12–140 of the West Building
Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except for Federal holidays.
FAA Order JO 7400.11G Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points and
subsequent amendments can be viewed
online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/
publications/. You may also contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Office of
Policy, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone: (202) 267–8783.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Fornito, Operations Support Group,
Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, GA 30337; Telephone:
(404) 305–6364.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
24937
The FAA’s authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code.
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. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use
of airspace necessary to ensure the
safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
airspace. This regulation is within the
scope of that authority, as it would
amend Class E airspace in Cross City,
FL. This action is necessary to support
IFR operations in the area.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM
25APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 25, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24927-24937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08551]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2022-0190; Project Identifier 2019-CE-048-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland Inc.) Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is revising a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that would have superseded Airworthiness Directive (AD) 64-09-03, which
applies to all de Havilland (type certificate now held by Viking Air
Limited) Model DHC-2 ``Beaver'' airplanes. This action revises the NPRM
by changing the required action specified in the proposed AD.
Additionally, the FAA is publishing an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) to aid the public in commenting on the potential
impacts to small entities from this proposal. The FAA is reopening the
comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on the revised
proposed action and whether the revised proposed action would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products and the agency is requesting comments on this SNPRM.
DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by June 9, 2023.
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 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.
AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-0190; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains the NPRM, this SNPRM, the mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Material Incorporated by Reference:
For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact
Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way, Sidney,
British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone: (800) 663-8444; fax: (250)
656-0673; email: [email protected]; website:
vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins.
You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Delisio, Continued Operational
Safety Program Manager, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (516) 228-7321; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal, including the IRFA. Send your comments
to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-
0190; Project Identifier 2019-CE-048-AD'' 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 again revise this 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
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this SNPRM.
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 SNPRM 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 SNPRM, 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 SNPRM. Submissions containing CBI should
be sent to James Delisio, Continued Operational Safety Program Manager,
FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590. 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 an NPRM (87 FR 7065, February 8, 2022; corrected
February 18, 2022 (87 FR 9274)) that would apply to all Viking Air
Limited (Viking) Model DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III
airplanes. The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 64-09-03, Amendment 718
(29 FR 5390, April 22, 1964) (AD 64-09-03), which applies to all de
Havilland (type certificate now held by Viking) Model
[[Page 24928]]
DHC-2 ``Beaver'' airplanes. AD 64-09-03 requires inspecting the aileron
mass balance weight arms for cracks and corrosion and replacing any
damaged part. AD 64-09-03 resulted from cracks and corrosion found on
aileron mass balance weight arm part numbers (P/Ns) C2WA151, C2WA152,
C2WA127, and C2WA128.
The NPRM proposed to require establishing a corrosion prevention
and control program to identify and correct corrosion. In the NPRM, the
FAA also proposed to require completing all of the initial tasks
identified in the program and reporting corrosion findings to Viking.
The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2019-25, dated July 5, 2019, issued by
Transport Canada, which is the airworthiness authority for Canada
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''). The MCAI states that it
supersedes prior Transport Canada ADs related to a supplementary
inspection and corrosion control program for aging airplanes, which
identifies specific locations of an airplane that must be inspected to
ensure corrosion-related degradation does not result in an unsafe
condition. The MCAI continues to require the tasks included in the
initial issue of Viking, DHC-2 Beaver Supplemental Inspection and
Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1-2-5, dated June 21, 2017, and requires
additional inspections for components of airframe systems other than
flight controls, which are included in Viking DHC-2 Beaver Supplemental
Inspection and Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, dated
January 10, 2019 (Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1). Corrosion-related
degradation, if not addressed, could lead to structural failure with
consequent loss of control of the airplane.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-0190.
Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued
Since the FAA issued the NPRM, the FAA revised the proposed actions
specified in the NPRM. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require
establishing a corrosion prevention and control program approved by the
FAA. In this SNPRM the FAA proposes to require incorporating into the
existing maintenance records for your airplane the actions specified in
Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1.
In addition, the FAA is reopening the comment period to allow the
public the chance to comment on whether the proposed AD would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.
Comments
The FAA received comments from 23 commenters. The commenters were
the Alaska Air Carriers Association, Alaska Air Transporters, Alaska
Aircraft Sales and Maintenance, Alaska Seaplanes, Athens Insurance,
Beluga Air, LLC, Enchanted Lake Lodge, Mountain Flying Service, Regal
Air, Tailwind Aviation Inc., Taquan Air, Trail Ridge Air Inc., Ward
Air, Inc., and several individuals.
The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the
FAA's response to each comment.
Request To Withdraw NPRM: Current Regulations Are Adequate
Alaska Air Carriers Association, Beluga Air, LLC, Trail Ridge Air,
Regal Air, Ward Air, Inc., and individual commenters stated that the
NPRM is not needed due to existing requirements for annual and 100-hour
inspections in the Federal Aviation Regulations.
The FAA does not agree that current regulations require the same
inspections as those proposed in the NPRM. The FAA acknowledges that
some of the tasks are in locations of the airplane where 100-hour or
annual inspections require other inspections, but the inspections
proposed in this SNPRM are focused on certain areas of the airplane and
more detailed than those covered in the required annual or 100-hour
inspections. The inspections specified in this SNPRM are part of a
supplemental inspection and corrosion prevention program that is
included in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1. These
inspection types and intervals address locations or parts that are not
currently required to be inspected as part of annual or 100-hour
inspections in existing regulations. These new inspections and
intervals are needed to detect and address corrosion, which could lead
to structural failure with consequent loss of control of the airplane.
The FAA has not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.
Request To Withdraw NPRM: Impact on Small Entities
Alaska Air Carriers Association, Alaska Seaplanes, Beluga Air, LLC,
Regal Air, Trail Ridge Air, Ward Air, Inc., and individual commenters
questioned the statement in the Regulatory Findings section of the NPRM
that the NPRM ``[w]ould not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.'' Alaska Air Carriers
Association, Alaska Seaplanes, Beluga Air, LLC, Mountain Flying
Services, Regal Air, and Trail Ridge Air, noted that Alaska tourism,
fishing, hunting, and other businesses would face an adverse economic
impact. Some of these commenters noted that the costs of the proposed
requirements could put some small or medium-sized businesses out of
business. Alaska Air Carriers Association, Alaska Seaplanes, Beluga
Air, LLC, and several individual commenters suggested that the NPRM
would waste resources or add an undue burden for the small companies
that operate these airplanes.
The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns and infers that the
commenters are requesting that the NPRM be withdrawn due to the
perceived adverse economic impact on small entities. Under 14 CFR 39.1,
issuance of an AD is based on the finding that an unsafe condition
exists or is likely to develop in aircraft of a particular type design.
An aging airplane requires more attention during maintenance procedures
and, at times, more frequent inspections of structural components to
detect damage due to environmental deterioration, accidental damage,
and fatigue. The unsafe condition addressed in this SNPRM includes
undetected corrosion, which could lead to structural failure and
consequent loss of control of the airplane. Inspections and repair are
therefore necessary to detect and correct such corrosion before it
leads to structural failure. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM
regarding this issue.
Regarding the question of the NPRM having a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the FAA has developed
an IRFA for this proposed action and a reason for issuing this SNPRM is
to solicit comments on the IRFA.
Request To Withdraw NPRM: Lack of Data on Corrosion-Related Accidents
Alaska Aircraft Sales and Maintenance and an individual commenter
asked how many accidents could be traced back to corrosion on these
airplanes. One individual commenter added that in over 25 years of
performing maintenance, the commenter had not seen any Model DHC-2
airplanes show an unusual tendency for corrosion or excessive stress
and added that, on average, there is less corrosion on a Model DHC-2
airplane than is typical of airplanes more than 10 years old. A
different individual commenter noted that in 37 years of experience,
the commenter was unaware of the affected airplanes having
[[Page 24929]]
accidents or incidents due to corrosion. That individual commenter
added that these airplanes are painted before assembly with corrosion-
preventing primer and are probably less prone to corrosion than
airplanes of the same age that are painted on the outside after
assembly. Taquan Air stated that it is unaware of accidents or failures
associated with corrosion on the affected airplanes. The FAA infers
that the commenters are requesting that the FAA withdraw the NPRM.
The FAA does not agree with the commenters' requests to withdraw
the NPRM. According to 14 CFR 39.5, the issuance of an AD is based on
the finding that an unsafe condition exists or is likely to exist or
develop in other products of the same type design. This section of the
Federal Aviation Regulations does not specify that an accident is
necessary for the FAA to determine that there is an unsafe condition.
In this case, the FAA independently reviewed the MCAI and related
service information and determined an unsafe condition exists and an AD
is needed to address that unsafe condition. Further, it is within the
FAA's authority and responsibility to issue ADs to require actions to
address unsafe conditions that are not otherwise being addressed (or
are not addressed adequately) by routine maintenance procedures. In
addition, based upon detailed airplane tear-down inspections performed
by Viking (the design approval holder), the FAA has determined that the
existing maintenance procedures and inspections will not adequately
detect corrosion. Although this SNPRM is not tied to a specific
corrosion related accident, the FAA has determined that such undetected
corrosion could lead to structural failure. The FAA has a
responsibility to issue ADs to correct identified unsafe conditions in
aircraft, regardless of the location or cause. The FAA has not changed
this SNPRM regarding this issue.
Request To Withdraw NPRM: No Obligation To Adopt the Proposed AD
Alaska Air Carriers Association, Alaska Seaplanes, Beluga Air LLC,
Regal Air, Trail Ridge Air, and individual commenters requested that
the FAA withdraw the NPRM, explaining the FAA has no obligation to
enact the NPRM simply because Transport Canada enacted an AD. Some of
these commenters claimed that finalizing the NPRM to a final rule would
contradict the FAA's requirement to ``encourage and develop civil
aeronautics'' by imposing substantial costs and efforts to comply with
that final rule.
The FAA disagrees with withdrawing the NPRM. Although the FAA
acknowledges that it has no obligation to adopt an AD to parallel the
requirements in the Transport Canada AD, the FAA has a responsibility
to issue ADs to require actions to address unsafe conditions that are
not otherwise being addressed. As previously stated, the FAA
independently reviewed the MCAI and related service information and
determined an unsafe condition exists and an AD is needed to address
that unsafe condition. The FAA may address such unsafe conditions by
requiring revisions to maintenance records as a condition under which
airplanes may continue to be operated. Part of the FAA's obligation to
``encourage and develop civil aeronautics'' is to take any necessary
action to keep the existing aircraft fleet safe, which includes the
issuance of ADs. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM regarding this
issue.
Request To Acknowledge Impacts on Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
Alaska Air Carriers Association, Alaska Seaplanes, Beluga Air LLC,
and individual commenters requested that the FAA revise the NPRM to
acknowledge that intrastate aviation in Alaska would be affected.
Alaska Seaplanes asserted that 13 local Alaska businesses stated that
the proposed AD would put them out of business; the commenter added
that these businesses are the lifeline to small and rural communities
not accessible by other aircraft.
The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns. In light of the
heavy reliance on aviation for intrastate transportation in Alaska, the
FAA has fully considered the effects of this SNPRM (including costs to
be borne by affected operators) from the earliest possible stages of AD
development. The NPRM was based on those considerations, and was
developed with regard to minimizing the economic impact on operators to
the extent possible, consistent with the safety objectives of this
SNPRM. In any event, the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)
require operators to correct an unsafe condition identified on an
airplane to ensure operation of that airplane in an airworthy
condition. The FAA has determined that the need to correct the unsafe
conditions outweighs any impact on aviation in Alaska. The FAA has not
changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.
In addition, regarding the costs of this SNPRM, the FAA has
developed an IRFA for this proposed action and a reason for issuing
this SNPRM is to solicit comments on the IRFA.
Request To Supersede All Corrosion ADs for the Affected Models
Alaska Air Carriers Association, Beluga Air LLC, Mountail Flying
Services, Regal Air, Ward Air, Inc., and individual commenters
requested that the NPRM be revised to supersede all ADs related to
corrosion prevention and maintenance for the affected airplanes, not
just AD 64-09-03. An individual noted that the NPRM conflicts with more
than just AD 64-09-03 and added that AD 2008-11-11, Amendment 39-15533
(73 FR 34611, June 18, 2008) (AD 2008-11-11) specifies a penetrant
inspection for cracks in the front spar center section web of the
tailplane, while task C55-10-02 in Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, allows
using a penetrant or an eddy current inspection, which seems
contradictory.
The FAA disagrees with the commenters' requests to supersede all
corrosion-related ADs for the affected airplanes. The FAA has reviewed
all potentially related ADs against the proposed requirements in this
SNPRM and determined that no other ADs need to be superseded or
rescinded. Any other ADs involving inspecting for corrosion on the
affected airplanes require either inspecting different parts or
locations on an airplane or the inspections are not as in-depth or
repetitive; therefore they do not overlap with the proposed
inspections. This includes AD 2008-11-11, which requires inspecting a
different part than that in task C55-10-02 of Viking PSM 1-2-5,
Revision 1. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.
Request To Add Airplanes to Aging Aircraft or Other Existing Rulemaking
Taquan Air and an individual commenter requested that the unsafe
condition be addressed by adding these airplanes to the Aging Aircraft
rule (14 CFR 135.422), rather than through the NPRM. The commenters
noted that doing so would evenly spread the burden, rather than having
different corrosion control policies for different airplane models.
Taquan Air noted that Alaska has been exempted from the Aging Aircraft
rule. Both commenters suggested that 14 CFR part 43 appendix D (which
specifies the scope and detail of items to be included in annual and
100-hour inspections) be rewritten to address corrosion. The individual
commenter added that 14 CFR 135.422 should apply to all part 135
operators, with a similar 14 CFR regulation applicable to part 91
operators.
[[Page 24930]]
The FAA disagrees with adding this to the Aging Aircraft rule. The
proposed action would address a known unsafe condition on the structure
of Viking Model DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes.
If the FAA finds that other aircraft have similar issues to the
affected airplanes, the FAA would look at appropriate rulemaking for
those aircraft also. For the Viking Model DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II,
and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes, as stated previously, the FAA has
determined that annual and 100-hour inspections are currently not
adequate to address the unsafe condition identified in this SNPRM. The
FAA has a responsibility to address an unsafe condition that is not
addressed by general maintenance by issuing an AD. Therefore, the
proposed actions of this SNPRM are the appropriate way of addressing
the unsafe condition. Adding inspections for corrosion to 14 CFR part
43 appendix D to address the unsafe condition identified in this SNPRM
is not appropriate because that corrective action would not be limited
to the products affected by this unsafe condition. 14 CFR part 43
appendix D contains general inspections that are not specific to
individual products. Therefore, issuing an AD is the appropriate
vehicle for addressing this identified unsafe condition. The FAA has
not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.
Request To Revise the Number of Affected Airplanes
Alaska Air Transporters, Alaska Seaplanes, Athens Insurance,
Enchanted Lake Lodge, Tailwind Aviation, and individual commenters
requested that the Costs of Compliance section in the NPRM be revised
to reflect that more than 135 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected. Several of these commenters suggested that 382 airplanes of
U.S. registry would be affected, while one individual commenter stated
that there are ``more like 400 airplanes involved.'' A second
individual commenter noted that many of these airplanes have been
erroneously registered as Model L-20A airplanes due to incorrect
procedures when the airplanes were imported or converted from military
to civilian use.
The FAA agrees with the commenters' request to revise the number of
affected airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA has re-evaluated the data
and determined that 409 airplanes of U.S. registry is a better
estimate. The FAA notes that there are no airplanes on the U.S.
registry listed as Model L-20A airplanes. The FAA has revised the Costs
of Compliance section of this SNPRM accordingly.
Request To Revise Costs of Compliance: Labor Rate
Alaska Air Transporters, Athens Insurance, Enchanted Lake Lodge,
Tailwind Aviation, and several individual commenters requested that the
FAA revise the labor rate in the Costs of Compliance section of the
NPRM. The commenters noted that current labor rates are anywhere from
$110 to $150 per hour. Several of these commenters added that the
proposed costs do not consider airplane downtime or the current
shortage of qualified mechanics able to do the inspections.
Additionally, Alaska Seaplanes asserted that three operators have
complied with the service information referenced in the NPRM and the
cost of compliance was $65,000 to $125,000, not the $29,070 per
airplane estimated in the NPRM.
The FAA disagrees with the commenters' requests to revise the labor
rate in the Costs of Compliance section of this SNPRM. The FAA notes
that the labor rate of $85 per hour is provided by the FAA Office of
Aviation Policy and Plans for the FAA to use when estimating the labor
costs of complying with AD requirements. Regarding the comments on
down-time and labor shortages, the FAA acknowledges the commenters'
concerns. The FAA recognizes that in accomplishing the requirements of
any AD, operators might incur ``indirect'' costs in addition to the
``direct'' costs that are reflected in the cost analysis presented in
the AD. However, the cost analysis in ADs typically does not include
indirect costs since the FAA does not have sufficient information to
evaluate these costs including additional down-time and loss of
revenue. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.
Request To Revise Requirements Based on Airplane Usage Conditions
Alaska Aircraft Sales and Maintenance, Alaska Air Transporters,
Athens Insurance, Enchanted Lake Lodge, Mountain Flying Service,
Tailwind Aviation, Taquan Air, and several individuals requested that
the NPRM be revised to have different requirements based on how the
airplane is used. Alaska Aircraft Sales and Maintenance suggested that
the NPRM penalized operators by applying one program to all operating
environments. Several of these commenters noted that airplanes used on
wheels or only in freshwater would have less exposure to factors
causing corrosion than airplanes operated in saltwater and suggested
the requirements should be revised accordingly. Mountain Flying
Services noted that its airplane is kept in a heated hanger when not in
use, has been rebuilt, and has had minimal time in water, which makes
it less susceptible to corrosion. An individual commenter suggested the
NPRM should allow both specificity and flexibility based on atmospheric
conditions, saltwater exposure, and time on floats.
The FAA disagrees with the commenters' requests to change the NPRM
based on different airplane operational usage. There is no current
requirement to track the hours spent flying in different conditions or
types of water. Additionally, operators may not know the entire flight
history of an airplane. Without this detailed knowledge of each
airplane, it would be impossible for the FAA to develop a special set
of inspections based on airplane usage conditions. However, operators
may submit a proposal for revised requirements by requesting an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) using the procedures specified
in paragraph (i) of this SNPRM. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM
regarding this issue.
Request To Clarify Process for Creating Corrosion Prevention and
Control Program
Alaska Air Carriers Association, Alaska Aircraft Sales and
Maintenance, Regal Air, Taquan Air, Trail Ridge Air Inc., and several
individual commenters asked for clarity regarding the process of
creating and getting approval for a corrosion prevention and control
program. Alaska Aircraft Sales and Maintenance asked what the guidance
will be for an operator who chooses to write its own program versus
getting an AMOC. Alaska Aircraft Sales and Maintenance asked if any
maintenance inspector could approve the program or if it would have to
go to the aircraft certification office (ACO), and further questioned
how the operator would comply in a timely manner if ACO approval is
delayed. One individual commenter noted that the proposed AD does not
include a specific definition of what the program would require, only
that it should line up with an undated revision of a Viking maintenance
manual. That same individual commenter added that the affected
airplanes are already maintained following maintenance instructions and
recommended practices (and compliance times when scheduling permits) in
Viking Service Bulletin V2/0011, Revision NC, dated November 28,
[[Page 24931]]
2019 (Viking Service Bulletin V2/0011, Revision NC), which is related
to the Viking maintenance manual, so operators should not be held to a
higher level of accountability. A second individual commenter noted
that it appears the NPRM would give Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, the
same authority and weight as an airworthiness limitation, or operators
could write their own program and get it approved by the FAA. That same
individual commenter questioned what would happen when Viking PSM 1-2-
5, Revision 1, is revised and contradicts the AD requirements. A third
individual commenter suggested it is unfair for the FAA to require
operators to develop a program without the proper qualifications,
experience, or training. That same individual commenter suggested that
the lack of guidance and procedures would leave room for
interpretation, leading to multiple exhanges with the FAA and an ever-
evolving process that could lead to significant delays and could ground
airplanes. A fourth individual commenter added that trying to design a
manual to be approved by several different parties could lead to
confusion for both the operator submitting the manual and the FAA, and
suggested targeting the area of concern and inspections based on
existing Advisory Circular (AC) 43-4B, Corrosion Control for Aircraft,
dated September 11, 2018. Taquan Air asked how long it would take to
get a program approved. Taquan Air also asked if the Viking corrosion
control program is an approved method for establishing a corrosion
prevention and control program. Taquan Air suggested that the FAA
establish areas that need to be in the program and an outline of
expectations, so operators can get it correct.
The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding the
creation of a corrosion prevention and control program. To make
compliance easier for operators and eliminate the need to create an
FAA-approved corrosion prevention and control program, the FAA
simplified the proposed actions. This SNPRM would require incorporating
the inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, into
the existing maintenance records. In Note 1 to paragraph (g) of the
NPRM, the use of Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, was identified as an
acceptable means of compliance but was not required to be used. That
note has been removed from this SNPRM and the subsequent note that
appeared as Note 2 to paragraph (g) has been has re-identified as Note
1 to paragraph (g) in this proposed AD.
The FAA acknowledges that Viking Service Bulletin V2/0011, Revision
NC, is related to this SNPRM because it lists the inspection tasks and
descriptions that are specified in Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, and
specifies to accomplish those tasks following the procedures in Viking
PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1. Note 1 to paragraph (g) in this proposed AD
refers to Viking Service Bulletin V2/0011, Revision NC, as an
additional source of information.
If Transport Canada or the FAA determines that any revised tasks in
a future Viking PSM are necessary to address an unsafe condition, the
FAA will consider future rulemaking to require operators to accomplish
those tasks. The FAA also acknowledges the commenters' concerns
regarding delays and timeliness of approving a corrosion prevention and
control program, however, since this proposed AD would require
operators to incorporate the inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM
1-2-5, Revision 1, into the existing maintenance records, those
concerns should be mitigated.
Request To Remove or Revise Certain Inspection Requirements
An individual commenter stated that Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1,
is duplicative of Viking PSM 1-2-2, DHC 2 Beaver Maintenance Manual,
Revision 4, dated March 28, 2018 (Viking PSM 1-2-2, Revision 4), and
provided a summary of inspections that are already included in Viking
PSM 1-2-2, Revision 4, and other service information. The commenter
added that the new inspections in Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, are
non-destuctive testing (NDT) inspections that in Canada are issued with
a pass/fall certificate. The commenter added that the pass/fail
documentation does not contain any actual measured results, therefore
the statistical predictive modeling for time to failure (which would
allow operators to plan replacement/overhaul activities) cannot be
accomplished. The commenter provided several suggestions including:
Viking be required to supply measured results and predictive indicators
to operators; duplicate inspection points related to Viking PSM 1-2-2,
Revision 4, be removed from the NPRM; a recommended order of operations
for the inspections be provided so they are streamlined; and that ADs
be combined for simplification of maintenance.
The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concerns about potential
duplication between Viking PSM 1-2-2, Revision 4, and Viking PSM 1-2-5,
Revision 1. However, the inspections in these two documents are
designed to complement each other. Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, refers
to Viking PSM 1-2-2, Revision 4, and other documents. The recommended
supplemental inspection and control program in Viking PSM 1-2-5,
Revision 1, does not replace any aspect of the current inspection
program that is described in Viking PSM 1-2-2, Revision 4, or other
referenced documents. The FAA further notes that the FAA cannot use an
AD to require Viking to supply results, indicators, or other
information to operators, although individual operators could request
that information from Viking. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM
regarding this issue.
Request To Allow Phase-in of Inspections
Alaska Air Transporters, Alaska Aircraft Sales and Maintenance,
Athens Insurance, Enchanted Lake Lodge, Mountain Flying Services,
Tailwind Aviation, and two individual commenters requested that the
NPRM be revised to allow a phase-in period for the proposed new
requirements. Several of these commenters noted that fully implementing
the Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, and inspections in one year would
double or triple their budgeted maintenance costs. Several of these
commenters suggested allowing a 5-year incremental implementation of
the manual, with different inspections required each year. One
individual commenter noted that the airplane fleet is not that large,
and flexibility could be afforded, which would allow operators to use
multiple seasons of revenue to fund the inspections. Alaska Aircraft
Sales and Maintenance noted that the 8-month deadline for initial
inspections is too restrictive and should be phased-in, similar to
Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, or aligned to be performed at the same
time as other required service actions. Alaska Aircraft Sales and
Maintenance added that operators should be provided credit for the
initial inspection if they have already done a given task.
The FAA partially agrees with the commenters' requests to extend
the compliance times. Paragraph (g) of this proposed AD would require
incorporating the inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-2-5,
Revision 1, into the existing maintenance records and doing each
initial task within 6 months after the effective date of the final rule
or at the threshold for each applicable task specified in Part 3 of
Viking Product Support Manual PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, whichever occurs
later.
[[Page 24932]]
The FAA disagrees with increasing the compliance time up to 5 years.
Regarding Alaska Aircraft Sales and Maintenance's request for
credit, the FAA agrees to provide clarification. Paragraph (f) of this
proposed AD states to accomplish the required actions within the
compliance times specified, ``unless already done.'' Therefore, if
operators have accomplished the actions required for compliance
specified in this SNPRM before the effective date of the final rule, no
further action is necessary, unless the task is a repetitive action and
then it would be required at the repetitive interval. The FAA has not
revised this SNPRM in this regard.
Request To Allow Mechanics To Perform Certain Tasks
An individual requested that ``properly trained mechanics'' be
allowed to perform the NDT inspections (tasks). Ward Air requested that
an ``in-house trained aircraft technician'' using ``modern technology''
be allowed to do the required ultrasonic testing rather than requiring
an operator to hire an outside Level II trained technician to perform
the testing.
The FAA partially agrees with the commenters' requests. Operators
can use an in-house properly trained individual with qualifications
equivalent to Level II or Level III to do the NDT inspections. FAA
Advisory Circular 65-31B, Training, Qualification, and Certification of
Nondestructive Inspection Personnel, dated February 24, 2014, contains
FAA-approved Level II and Level III qualification standards critieria
for inspection personnel doing NDT inspections. The FAA does not agree
that this SNPRM specifies a requirement to hire outside properly
trained Level II NDT personnel. Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, specifies
that personnel certified as Level II or higher, as acceptable to the
operator's cognizant airworthiness authority, can do the NDT
inspections. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.
Request To Require Reporting to FAA Not Viking
An individual commenter requested that the NPRM be revised so that
the results of any required reporting are sent to the FAA through the
FAA's service difficulty reporting system, and not sent to a foreign
company (Viking) that is not overseen by the FAA.
The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. Transport Canada is
the State of Design Authority and Viking is the type certificate holder
for Model DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes. As
such, they should be evaluating the reports to determine if any
additional actions should be required to address the unsafe condition
and through the appropriate bilateral airworthiness agreement will
share such information with the FAA. For these reasons, the reports
should be sent to Viking. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM regarding
this issue.
Revised Estimated Costs of Compliance in This SNPRM
Based on the new requirement specified in paragraph (g) of this
proposed AD to incorporate the inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking
PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, into the existing maintenance records, the FAA
has revised the estimated costs associated with paragraph (g) of this
AD from 342 work-hours to 1 work-hour. The proposed requirements to
establish a corrosion prevention program and the initial inspection
tasks that were included in the NPRM were removed from this SNPRM.
FAA's Determination
These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI described above. The FAA is issuing this SNPRM after
determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to
exist or develop on other products of the same type design. At the
request of some commenters, the FAA is reopening the comment period of
this SNPRM to allow the public the chance to comment on the economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This SNPRM also
contains the changes discussed previously.
Proposed AD Requirements in This SNPRM
This proposed AD would retain none of the requirements of AD 64-09-
03. This proposed AD would require, within 90 days after the effective
date of the final rule, incorporating into the existing maintenance
records the actions specified in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-2-5,
Revision 1, and doing each initial task within 6 months after the
effective date of the proposed AD or at the threshold for each
applicable task specified in Part 3 of Viking Product Support Manual
PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, whichever occurs later. This proposed AD would
also require reporting corrosion findings to Viking. Because the
inspection of the aileron balance weight arms required by AD 64-09-03
would be included in the revision of the existing maintenance records,
this proposed AD would supersede AD 64-09-03.
ADs Mandating Airworthiness Limitations (ALS)
The FAA has previously mandated airworthiness limitations by
issuing ADs that require revising the ALS of the existing maintenance
manual or instructions for continued airworthiness to incorporate new
or revised inspections. This proposed AD, however, would require
establishing and incorporating new inspections into the existing
maintenance records required by 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2)
for your airplane. The FAA does not intend this as a substantive
change. Requiring incorporation of the new ALS requirements into the
existing maintenance records, rather than requiring individual
repetitive inspections and replacements, allows operators to record AD
compliance once after updating the existing maintenance records, rather
than recording compliance after every inspection and part replacement.
Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51
The FAA reviewed Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, which specifies
procedures for inspecting locations of the airplane that are
particularly susceptible to corrosion-related degradation and includes
repetitive inspection intervals, defines the different levels of
corrosion, and provides corrective action if corrosion is found.
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.
Other Related Service Information
The FAA reviewed Viking Service Bulletin V2/0011, Revision NC. This
service information provides a list of new inspection tasks that have
been added to the DHC-2 supplementary inspection and corrosion control
program, Viking PSM-1-2-5, Revision 1.
Impact on Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
In light of the heavy reliance on aviation for intrastate
transportation in Alaska, the FAA has fully considered the effects of
this SNPRM (including costs to be borne by affected operators) from the
earliest possible stages of AD development. As previously stated, 14
[[Page 24933]]
CFR part 39 requires operators to correct an unsafe condition
identified on an airplane to ensure operation of that airplane in an
airworthy condition. The FAA has determined that the need to correct
corrosion-related degradation in aging aircraft, which could lead to
structural failure with consequent loss of control of the airplane,
outweighs any impact on aviation in Alaska.
Costs of Compliance
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 409 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it
would take about 1 work-hour per airplane at a labor rate of $85 per
work-hour to revise the existing maintenance records.
Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of this proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $34,765 or $85 per airplane.
The FAA estimates it would take about 1 work-hour to report any
Level 2 corrosion found during the proposed initial or subsequent
inspections or any Level 3 corrosion found during the proposed initial
or subsequent inspections, for an estimated cost of $85 per airplane.
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 take
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, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat.
1164 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (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 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 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 RFA. 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 RFA, 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 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
The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 64-09-03, which applies to all de
Havilland (type certificate now held by Viking) Model DHC-2 ``Beaver''
airplanes, because after the FAA issued AD 64-09-03 Transport Canada
superseded its MCAI to identify specific locations of an airplane that
must be inspected to ensure corrosion-related degradation does not
result in an unsafe condition. The NPRM proposed to
[[Page 24934]]
require establishing a corrosion prevention and control program to
identify and correct corrosion, completing all of the initial tasks
identified in the program, and reporting corrosion findings to Viking.
The proposed corrosion prevention and control program would incude the
inspection of the aileron balance weight arms required by AD 64-09-03.
2. Objectives and Legal Basis of the Proposed Rule
The objective of the actions proposed in this SNPRM is to meet the
same safety intent as those actions proposed in the NPRM. The FAA
issued the NPRM 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 Viking Model DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II,
and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes.
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
The 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 (2022) 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). 2022. Table of Size
Standards. Effective July 14, 2022. https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA Civil Aircraft Registry shows 409 Model DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2
Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes that would be affected by this
SNPRM. These 409 airplanes are registered to 235 private businesses, 76
individuals, and 3 government agencies. The 76 individuals and 3
government agencies are excluded from this analysis as the RFA does not
apply to individuals and the 3 government agencies are not small
entities as defined by the RFA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Two airplanes are registered to the U.S. Department of the
Interior. Five airplanes are registered to the United States Forest
Service, within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Two airplanes
are registered to the State of Alaska to the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game. These government agencies and are not small entities
under the RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three hundred nineteen (319) airplanes are owned and operated by
235 private entities. A sample of 50 private businesses was randomly
selected for the analysis.\3\ Of the 50 sampled entities, 45 were found
to be small. The results of the cost impact analysis for these 45 small
entities is shown in Table 1 and will be discussed in the following
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The sample was selected by shuffling the order of the list
of 409 DHC-2 airplanes in the FAA Registry and going down the
randomized list. If revenue and employee count data were available,
it was included in the sample; otherwise, it was excluded. This
process was repeated until 50 entities, for which revenue and
employee data were available, had been added to the sample. The
shuffling was accomplished by giving each entry in the registry an
index value between 0 and 1 using Excel's RAND function. The entries
were then sorted by that index value to randomize their order.
Table 1--Cost Impact on Small Entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost/
Operator FAA registry type DHC-2 A/C Revenues Cost revenue NAICS Size standard NAICS industry
($1,000) (%) code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALASKAS FISHING UNLIMITED INC.... Non-Citizen Corp....... 1 79 $170.0 0.2 721214 $8 mn........... Recreational and
Vacation Camps
(except
Campgrounds).
DOUGLAS AVIATION LTD............. Corporation............ 2 90 340.0 0.4 541990 $17 mn.......... All Other
Professional,
Scientific and
Technical
Services.
NORTHSTAR HOLDINGS LLC........... LLC.................... 3 110 510.0 0.5 551112 $40 mn.......... Offices of Other
Holding Companies.
RHK OF KANSAS.................... Corporation............ 1 110 170.0 0.2 541110 $13.5 mn........ Offices of Lawyers.
SUMMIT LEASING LLC............... LLC.................... 1 110 170.0 0.2 532490 $35 mn.......... Other Comm'l & Ind.
Machinery and
Equip. Rental &
Leasing.
JESPERSEN AIRCRAFT SERVICES INC.. Corporation............ 3 113 510.0 0.4 481219 $22 mn.......... Other Nonscheduled
Air
Transportation.
KATMAI AIR LLC................... LLC.................... 1 117 170.0 0.1 532411 $40 mn.......... Comm'l Air, Rail, &
Water Transp.
Equip. Rental and
Leasing.
MUSTANG HIGH FLIGHT LLC.......... LLC.................... 1 127 170.0 0.1 334511 1,250 emp....... Search, Detect.,
Nav., Guid.,
Aero., & Naut.
Systems & Inst.
Mfg.
FLIGHT MANAGEMENT LLC............ LLC.................... 2 161 340.0 0.2 561110 $11 mn.......... Office
Administrative
Services.
NEWHALEN LODGE INC............... Corporation............ 3 165 510.0 0.3 721199 $8 mn........... All Other Traveler
Accommodation.
4R AVIATION LLC.................. LLC.................... 1 177 170.0 0.1 336411 1,500 emp....... Aircraft
Manufacturing.
RAINBOW KING LODGE INC........... Corporation............ 2 209 340.0 0.2 721199 $8 mn........... All Other Traveler
Accommodation.
DOYON AIRCRAFT LEASING LLC....... LLC.................... 1 250 170.0 0.1 532411 $40 mn.......... Comm'l Air, Rail, &
Water Transp.
Equip. Rental and
Leasing.
KENMORE CREW LEASING INC TRUSTEE. Corporation............ 1 278 170.0 0.1 532490 $35 mn.......... Other Comm'l & Ind.
Machinery and
Equip. Rental &
Leasing.
COMANCHE FIGHTERS LLC............ LLC.................... 1 301 170.0 0.1 813930 $14.5 mn........ Labor Unions and
Similar Labor
Organizations.
[[Page 24935]]
BAY AIR INC...................... Corporation............ 1 307 170.0 0.1 481111 1,500 emp....... Scheduled Passenger
Air
Transportation.
COYOTE AIR LLC................... LLC.................... 2 310 $340.0 0.1 481211 1,500 emp....... Nonscheduled
Chartered
Passenger Air
Transp.
KINGFISHER AIR INC............... Corporation............ 1 366 170.0 0.0 481219 $22 mn.......... Other Nonscheduled
Air
Transportation.
ASSOCIATED LEASING LLC........... LLC.................... 1 500 170.0 0.0 532490 $35 mn.......... Other Comm'l & Ind.
Machinery and
Equip. Rental &
Leasing.
TIKCHIK NARROWS LODGE INC........ Corporation............ 3 720 510.0 0.1 721214 $8 mn........... Recreational and
Vacation Camps
(except
Campgrounds).
NORTHWEST SEAPLANES INC.......... Corporation............ 3 750 510.0 0.1 481111 1,500 emp....... Scheduled Passenger
Air
Transportation.
SNOW MOUNTAIN ENTERPRISES LLC.... LLC.................... 1 750 170.0 0.0 532000 $8 mn........... Rental and Leasing
Services, N.F.S.
ISLAND WINGS AIR SERVICE LLC..... LLC.................... 2 956 340.0 0.0 481211 1,500 emp....... Nonscheduled
Chartered
Passenger Air
Transp.
TVPX AIRCRAFT SOLUTIONS INC Corporation............ 3 1,157 510.0 0.0 336310 1,000 emp....... Motor Vehicle
TRUSTEE. Gasoline Engine
and Engine Parts
Mfg.
SHELDON AIR SERVICE LLC.......... LLC.................... 1 1,400 170.0 0.0 481219 $22 mn.......... Other Nonscheduled
Air
Transportation.
TALKEETNA AIR TAXI INC........... Corporation............ 1 1,635 170.0 0.0 481219 $22 mn.......... Other Nonscheduled
Air
Transportation.
NO SEE UM LODGE INC.............. Corporation............ 3 2,036 510.0 0.0 721214 $8 mn........... Recreational and
Vacation Camps
(except
Campgrounds).
WARD AIR INC..................... Corporation............ 4 2,191 680.0 0.0 481219 $22 mn.......... Other Nonscheduled
Air
Transportation.
HISTORIC FLIGHT FOUNDATION....... Corporation............ 1 2,500 340.0 0.0 712110 $30 mn.......... Museums.
LAKE HAVASU SEAPLANES LLC........ LLC.................... 1 2,500 170.0 0.0 611000 $8 mn........... Educational
Services, N.F.S.
RDJ BROTHERS TRUCKING INC........ Corporation............ 1 2,500 170.0 0.0 236000 $39.5 mn........ Construction of
buildings, N.F.S.
SEAWIND AVIATION INC............. Corporation............ 2 2,500 170.0 0.0 481211 1,500 emp....... Nonscheduled
Chartered
Passenger Air
Transp.
TIKCHIK AIRVENTURES LLC.......... LLC.................... 1 2,500 170.0 0.0 481211 1,500 emp....... Nonscheduled
Chartered
Passenger Air
Transp.
WOLF TRAIL LODGE INC............. Corporation............ 1 2,500 170.0 0.0 721000 $8 mn........... Accommodation,
N.F.S.
ANDREW AIRWAYS INC............... Corporation............ 3 2,576 510.0 0.0 485999 $16.5 mn........ All Other Transit
and Ground
Passenger
Transportation.
ALASKAS ENCHANTED LAKE LODGE INC. Corporation............ 2 2,729 340.0 0.0 721310 $12.5 mn........ Rooming & Boarding
Houses,
Dormitories, and
Workers' Camps.
RAINBOW RIVER LODGE LLC.......... LLC.................... 2 4,000 340.0 0.0 721214 $8 mn........... Recreational and
Vacation Camps
(except
Campgrounds).
K BAY AIR LLC.................... LLC.................... 1 4,427 170.0 0.0 481219 $22 mn.......... Other Nonscheduled
Air
Transportation.
RAPIDS CAMP LODGE INC............ Corporation............ 1 7,000 170.0 0.0 713990 $8 mn........... All Other Amusement
and Recreation
Industries.
PROGRESSIVE PLASTICS INC......... Corporation............ 1 7,500 170.0 0.0 326199 750 emp......... All Other Plastics
Product
Manufacturing.
BROWN HELICOPTER INC............. Corporation............ 1 9,000 170.0 0.0 336412 1,500 emp....... Aircraft Engine and
Engine Parts
Manufacturing.
PERRYCOOK FLIGHT SERVICES LLC.... LLC.................... 1 12,500 170.0 0.0 481211 1,500 emp....... Nonscheduled
Chartered
Passenger Air
Transp.
KOMRO INTERNATIONAL LLC.......... LLC.................... 1 14,100 170.0 0.0 423820 125 emp......... Farm & Garden
Machinery & Equip.
Merchant
Wholesalers.
CONCRETE WORKS OF COLORADO INC... Corporation............ 1 16,190 170.0 0.0 238110 $16.5 mn........ Poured Concrete
Foundation and
Structure
Contractors.
KENMORE AIR HARBOR LLC........... LLC.................... 9 51,500 1,530.0 0.0 481111 1,500 emp....... Scheduled Passenger
Air
Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ ....................... 80 $161,997 13,600 ......... ......... ................ ...................
Mean......................... ....................... ......... 3,600 302 0.1 ......... ................ ...................
Median....................... ....................... ......... 956 170 0.0 ......... ................ ...................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. The size standard is the maximum size for the NAICS industry considered by the Small Business Administration to be a small entity.
2. AD costs per airplane are 1 work-hour x $85 = $85 + $85 reporting costs for initial inspection, for a total of $170.
3. All percentage figures are rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent. All 0.0% figures represent values below 0.1%, but above 0%.
5. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
The FAA estimated that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would take
about 1 work-hour per airplane at a labor rate of $85 per work-hour
incorporate the inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-2-5,
Revision 1, into the existing maintenance records and comply with the
initial inspection tasks of the program, plus $85 per airplane to
report any corrosion found during the proposed initial inspections, for
an estimated total cost of $170 per airplane.
The estimated cost of this proposed AD, per small entity, is shown
in the ``Cost'' column of Table 1 and cost impact is measured by cost
as a percentage of revenues. As the table
[[Page 24936]]
shows, the mean cost impact is 0.1% of annual revenues,\4\ while the
median cost impact of less than 0.1% shows no significant impact on any
of the small entities. This impact did not vary with firm size; the
largest cost impact was only 0.5%, which is still not considered
significant. Therefore, the FAA finds that the proposed AD would not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These revenue data come from online sources such as
zoominfo.com, opencorporates.com, buzzfile.com, manta.com,
allbiz.com, and lookupcompanyrevenue.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Regulatory Findings
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
(2) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the RFA.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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 64-09-03, Amendment 718 (29 FR
5390, April 22, 1964); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:
Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier
Inc. and de Havilland Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2022-0190; Project
Identifier 2019-CE-048-AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by June 9, 2023.
(b) Affected ADs
This AD replaces AD 64-09-03, Amendment 718 (29 FR 5390, April
22, 1964).
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to Viking Air Limited (type certificate
previously held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Model
DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes, all serial
numbers, certificated in any category.
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2000, Airframe.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as corrosion-
related degradation in aging aircraft. The FAA is issuing this AD to
detect and address corrosion, which could lead to structural failure
with consequent loss of control of the airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
(g) Required Actions
(1) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD,
incorporate into the existing maintenance records required by 14 CFR
91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2), as applicable for your airplane, the
actions and associated thresholds and intervals, including life
limits, specified in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking DHC-2 Beaver
Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1-2-5,
Revision 1, dated January 10, 2019 (Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1).
Do each initial task within 6 months after the effective date of
this AD or at the threshold for each applicable task specified in
Part 3 of Viking Product Support Manual PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1,
whichever occurs later. Where Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1,
specifies contacting Viking for instructions on forward and rear fin
attachment bolt replacement, inspection, and installation, and for a
disposition regarding attachment bolts, this AD requires contacting
the FAA, Transport Canada, or Viking's Transport Canada Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
Note 1 to paragraph (g): Viking DHC-2 Beaver Service Bulletin
V2/0011, Revision NC, dated November 28, 2019, contains additional
information related to this AD.
(2) After the action required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD has
been done, no alternative actions and associated thresholds and
intervals, including life limits, are allowed unless they are
approved as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(h) Reporting
(1) For inspections done after the effective date of this AD,
report to Viking any Level 2 or Level 3 corrosion, as specified in
Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, at the times specified in and in
accordance with part 3, paragraph 5, of Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision
1.
(2) For inspections done before the effective date of this AD,
within 30 days after the effective date of this AD report to Viking
any Level 2 or Level 3 corrosion, as specified in Viking PSM 1-2-5,
Revision 1, in accordance with part 3, paragraph 5, of Viking PSM 1-
2-5, Revision 1.
(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in Sec. 39.19. In accordance with Sec. 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 New York ACO Branch, mail it to ATTN: Program Manager,
Continuing Operational Safety, at the address identified in
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD or email to: [email protected]. If
mailing information, also submit information by email.
(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.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved specifically for this AD by the Manager, New York
ACO Branch, FAA.
(j) Additional Information
(1) Refer to the MCAI from Transport Canada, AD CF-2019-25,
dated July 5, 2019, for related information. This Transport Canada
AD may be found in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No.
FAA-2022-0190.
(2) For more information about this AD, contact James Delisio,
Continued Operational Safety Program Manager, FAA, New York ACO
Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone:
(516) 228-7321; email: [email protected].
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (k)(3) and (4) of this AD.
(k) 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) Viking DHC-2 Beaver Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion
Control Manual,
[[Page 24937]]
PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, dated January 10, 2019.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way, Sidney,
British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone: (800) 663-8444; fax: (250)
656-0673; email: [email protected]; website:
vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins.
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. 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: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
Issued on April 13, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-08551 Filed 4-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
