Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Airplanes, 41863-41870 [2023-13617]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Orenak, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301–
415–3229; email: Michael.Orenak@
nrc.gov, or Robert Roche-Rivera, Office
of Nuclear Regulatory Research,
telephone: 301–415–8113; email:
Robert.Roche-Rivera@nrc.gov. Both are
staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2022–
0073 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publicly
available information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2022–0073.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly
available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For
problems with ADAMS, please contact
the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR)
reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, at
301–415–4737, or by email to
PDR.Resource@nrc.gov.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents,
by appointment, at the NRC’s PDR,
Room P1 B35, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. To make an
appointment to visit the PDR, please
send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov
or call 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415–
4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern
time (ET), Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
B. Submitting Comments
The NRC encourages electronic
comment submission through the
Federal rulemaking website (https://
www.regulations.gov). Please include
Docket ID NRC–2022–0073 in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jun 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information
before making the comment
submissions available to the public or
entering the comment into ADAMS.
On May 25, 2023, the NRC published
a document in the Federal Register (88
FR 33846) requesting comments on DG–
1404, ‘‘Guidance for a TechnologyInclusive Content of Application
Methodology to Inform the Licensing
Basis and Content of Applications for
Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals
for Non-Light-Water Reactors.’’ The
public comment period was originally
scheduled to close on July 10, 2023. The
NRC has decided to extend the public
comment period on this document until
August 10, 2023, to allow more time for
members of the public to submit their
comments.
As noted in the Federal Register on
December 9, 2022 (87 FR 75671), this
document is being published in the
‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of the Federal
Register to comply with publication
requirements under 1 CFR chapter I.
III. Submitting Suggestions for
Improvement of Regulatory Guides
A member of the public may, at any
time, submit suggestions to the NRC for
improvement of existing RGs or for the
development of new RGs. Suggestions
can be submitted on the NRC’s public
website at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/reg-guides/
contactus.html. Suggestions will be
considered in future updates and
enhancements to the ‘‘Regulatory
Guide’’ series.
Dated: June 22, 2023.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Meraj Rahimi,
Chief, Regulatory Guide and Programs
Management Branch, Division of Engineering,
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. 2023–13683 Filed 6–27–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2020–1076; Project
Identifier MCAI–2020–01201–A]
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 applied to all Viking Air
Limited (Viking) (type certificate
previously held by Bombardier Inc. and
de Havilland, Inc.) Model DHC–3
airplanes. This action revises the NPRM
by changing the required action
specified in the proposed airworthiness
directive (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 August 14, 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–2020–1076; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
SUMMARY:
II. Discussion
Sfmt 4702
41863
E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM
28JNP1
41864
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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:
Deep Gaurav, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 228–
3731; email: 9-avs-nyaco-cos@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
The FAA invites you to send any
written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send
your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2020–1076; Project Identifier
MCAI–2020–01201–A’’ 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jun 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
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 Deep Gaurav,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 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 to amend
14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that
would apply to all Viking Model DHC–
3 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on February 8, 2022
(87 FR 7059). The NPRM was prompted
by AD CF–2018–04, dated January 19,
2018, issued by Transport Canada,
which is the aviation authority for
Canada (referred to after this as ‘‘the
MCAI’’). The MCAI states that Viking
developed 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 requires doing all
inspections specified in Part 2 of Viking
DHC–3 Otter Supplemental Inspection
and Corrosion Control Manual,
PSM 1–3–5, Revision IR, dated
December 21, 2017 (Viking PSM 1–3–5,
Revision IR), doing applicable corrective
actions using Part 3 of Viking PSM 1–
3–5, Revision IR, and reporting to
Viking Level 2 and Level 3 corrosion as
specified in Part 3 of Viking PSM 1–3–
5, Revision IR.
Corrosion, wear, and fatigue-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–2020–1076.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to
require establishing a corrosion
prevention and control program to
identify and correct corrosion and
cracking. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 1–3–5, Revision IR.
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
three commenters. The commenters
were Taquan Air, Talkeetna Air Taxi,
and an individual. The following
presents the comments received on the
NPRM and the FAA’s response to each
comment.
Request To Withdraw the NPRM: Lack
of Data on Corrosion-Related Accidents
Taquan Air and an individual
commenter stated that they were not
aware of any corrosion-related accidents
involving the affected airplanes. The
individual commenter noted that ADs
are supposed to be driven by accidents
and incidents that result in injury and/
or death and stated that if this is correct,
then there is no justification for the
NPRMs that would be applicable to the
Beavers [Model DHC–2 airplanes] and
Otters [Model DHC–3 airplanes]. The
individual commenter asked how
aviation would be made better by
issuing the NPRMs that would be
applicable to two dependable and
reliable airplanes. The FAA infers that
these 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
E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM
28JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
undetected corrosion could exist and
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: Impact
on Small Entities
Taquan Air and an individual
commenter expressed concern regarding
the financial impact of the NPRM on
small entities. The individual
commenter asked if the FAA considered
the financial burden on operators. This
commenter explained that there are not
enough mechanics and asked how a
company with Beavers and Otters could
stay in business trying to create and get
two corrosion programs up at the same
time and maintain the flying aircraft.
Taquan Air stated that the NPRM was
targeting a specific type of operator and
would financially burden just Beaver
and Otter operators.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jun 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
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 Supersede Certain ADs for
Viking Model DHC–3 Airplanes
Talkeetna Air Taxi requested that the
NPRM be revised to supersede certain
ADs for Viking Model DHC–3 airplanes
that include inspections requirements.
The commenter explained that Viking
PSM 1–3–5, Revision IR, is a broad and
detailed document, and stated that if
operators chose to use Viking PSM 1–3–
5, Revision IR, to establish a corrosion
control program, then the repetitive
inspections required by those ADs
would be redundant and those AD
should be superseded.
The FAA disagrees with the
commenter’s request. The FAA has
reviewed all potentially related ADs
against the proposed requirements in
this SNPRM and determined that no
ADs need to be superseded or
rescinded. If an operator identifies an
inspection that it considers to be
redundant, the operator can request an
alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) by using the procedures
specified in paragraph (i) of this
SNPRM.
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
Viking Model DHC–3 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 airplanes
operating in Alaska have 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.
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–3 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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41865
Model DHC–3 airplanes, 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 Requirements Based
on Airplane Usage Conditions
Taquan Air asked if the operating
environment, including the use of floats,
wheels, or skis, would be considered
when the FAA reviewed the corrosion
prevention program. The FAA infers
that the commenter is requesting a
change to the NPRM based on different
airplane operational usage.
The FAA disagrees with the
commenter’s request 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
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
Taquan Air and an individual
commenter asked for clarity regarding
the process of creating and getting
approval for a corrosion prevention and
control program. 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
E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM
28JNP1
41866
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 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
commenter suggested that the lack of
guidance and procedures would leave
room for interpretation, leading to
multiple exchanges with the FAA and
an ever-evolving process that could lead
to significant delays and could ground
airplanes.
The FAA acknowledges the
commenters’ concerns regarding the
creation of a corrosion prevention and
control program and has simplified the
proposed actions. This SNPRM would
require incorporating the inspections in
Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1–3–5,
Revision IR, into the existing
maintenance records. In Note 1 to
paragraph (g) of the NPRM, the use of
Viking PSM 1–3–5, Revision IR, 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)
of the NPRM has been has re-identified
as Note 1 to paragraph (g) in this
proposed AD.
The FAA also acknowledges the
commenters’ concerns regarding delays
and timeliness of approving a
prevention and control program,
however, since this proposed AD would
require operators to incorporate the
inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking
PSM 1–3–5, Revision IR, into the
existing maintenance records, those
concerns should be mitigated.
Request To Allow Mechanics to
Perform Certain Tasks
An individual commenter requested
that ‘‘properly trained mechanics’’ be
allowed to perform the non-destructive
testing (NDT) inspections (tasks).
The FAA agrees with the commenter’s
request. 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
criteria for inspection personnel doing
NDT inspections. Viking PSM 1–3–5,
Revision IR, specifies that personnel
certified as Level II or higher, as
acceptable to the operator’s cognizant
airworthiness authority, can do the NDT
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jun 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
inspections. The FAA has not changed
this SNPRM regarding this issue.
require reporting corrosion findings to
Viking.
Related Service Information Under 1
CFR Part 51
The FAA reviewed Viking PSM 1–3–
5, Revision IR, which specifies
procedures for inspecting areas of the
airplane that are particularly susceptible
to corrosion, wear, and fatigue-related
degradation. Viking PSM 1–3–5,
Revision IR, also specifies 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.
ADs Mandating Airworthiness
Limitations (ALS)
Other Related Service Information
The FAA also reviewed Viking DHC–
3 Otter Service Bulletin V3/0010,
Revision NC, dated March 19, 2020. The
service bulletin provides a list of new
inspection tasks that have been added to
the DHC–3 maintenance program in
Viking PSM 1–3–5, Revision IR.
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 and service
information 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 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 1–3–5, Revision IR, 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–
3–5, Revision IR, whichever occurs
later. This proposed AD would also
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
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
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, wear, and fatiguerelated 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 68
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 the proposed AD
on U.S. operators to be $5,780 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
E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM
28JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jun 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation. To achieve that principle,
the RFA requires agencies to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals
and to explain the rationale for their
actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of
small entities, including small
businesses, not-for-profit organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to
determine whether a proposed or final
rule will have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it
will, the agency must prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis as
described in the 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;
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41867
(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 FAA issued an NPRM that
proposed to adopt a new AD for Viking
Model DHC–3 airplanes. This proposed
AD results from MCAI originated by an
aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition
on an aviation product. The NPRM
proposed to require establishing a
corrosion prevention and control
program to identify and correct
corrosion and cracking. The NPRM also
proposed to require completing all of
the initial tasks identified in the
program and reporting corrosion
findings to Viking.
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–3 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
E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM
28JNP1
41868
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
generally define small businesses based
on the number of employees or annual
receipts.
The FAA identified 68 Viking Model
DHC–3 airplanes that would be affected
by the proposed AD. These 68 airplanes
are registered to 32 private firms and 5
individuals. The individuals are
excluded from this analysis as they
presumably are not small entities under
the RFA.
The 32 private firms own 63
airplanes. Of these firms, the FAA was
able to obtain the data necessary to
classify 21 of them.2 All but one firm
qualify as small entities under the RFA.
Thus, the FAA estimates that this rule
would impact 20 small entities. For
these 20 small entities, the results of the
of the cost impact analysis are shown in
Table 1, ‘‘Cost Impact on Small
Entities.’’
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
3. 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
4. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping,
and Other Compliance Requirements
The FAA estimates that the AD costs
per airplane would be 1 work hour plus
$85 in reporting costs for the initial
inspection, for a total of $170. 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 shows, the mean
cost impact is 0.1% of annual
revenues,3 with a maximum impact of
0.46% of annual revenues, and a
minimum impact below 0.01%. This
impact did not vary with firm size; the
largest cost impact was only 0.5%,
which is still not considered significant.
Costs under 1% of revenues for all of
the small entities lead the FAA to
conclude that this proposed rule would
s not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
TABLE 1—COST IMPACT ON SMALL ENTITIES
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Firm
Revenue
($1,000)
No. Acft
Cost
($1,000)
Cost/
revenue
(%)
NAICS
code
Size
standard
NAICS industry
Other Comm’l and Industrial Mach. and
Equip. Rental & Leasing.
Comm’l Air, Rail, and Water Transp. Equip.
Rental & Leasing.
Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation.
All Other Support Activities for Transportation.
Other Comm’l and Industrial Mach. and
Equip. Rental & Leasing.
All Other Traveler Accommodation.
Comm’l Air, Rail, and Water Transp. Equip.
Rental & Leasing.
Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation.
Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation.
Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation.
Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation.
Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation.
Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air
Transportation.
All Other Amusement and Recreation Industries.
Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation.
Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air
Transportation.
Comm’l Air, Rail, and Water Transp. Equip.
Rental & Leasing.
Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation.
Recreational and Vacation Camps (except
Campgrounds).
Commercial Banking.
SUMMIT LEASING LLC ...............................
3
$110
$0.2
0.00
532490
$35 mn .....
KATMAI AIR LLC .........................................
2
117
0.2
0.00
532411
$40 mn .....
JESPERSEN AIRCRAFT SERVICES INC ..
DOYON AIR TRANSPORT LLC ..................
1
1
113
127
1.9
1.0
0.00
0.01
481219
488999
$22 mn .....
$22 mn .....
RED LEASING LLC .....................................
2
359
0.2
0.01
532490
$35 mn .....
RAINBOW KING LODGE INC .....................
PANTECHNICON AVIATION LTD ...............
1
1
209
235
0.2
0.2
0.02
0.02
721199
532411
$8 mn .......
$40 mn .....
EMERALD AIR SERVICE INC .....................
BLUE AIRCRAFT LLC .................................
TALON AIR SERVICE INC ..........................
BALD MOUNTAIN AIR SERVICE INC ........
NORTHWEST SEAPLANES INC ................
TALKEETNA AIR TAXI INC .........................
1
2
1
1
1
6
250
750
520
700
750
4,600
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.07
481219
483000
481219
481219
481111
481211
$22 mn .....
1,500 emp.
$22 mn .....
$22 mn .....
1,500 emp.
1,500 emp.
GOLDEN EAGLE OUTFITTERS INC ..........
1
960
0.2
0.07
713990
$8 mn .......
MUNICH HANS W DBA ...............................
DESTINATION ALASKA ADVENTURE CO
LLC.
RUSTAIR INC ..............................................
1
1
998
1,300
0.2
0.3
0.08
0.09
481219
481211
$22 mn .....
1,500 emp.
6
10,224
0.2
0.13
532411
$40 mn .....
KENMORE AIR HARBOR LLC ....................
RAPIDS CAMP LODGE INC .......................
11
1
51,500
7,000
0.2
0.3
0.15
0.29
481111
721214
1,500 emp.
$8 mn .......
BANK OF UTAH TRUSTEE .........................
1
90,000
0.5
0.46
522110
$750 mn in
assets.
Total ......................................................
Average .................................................
Median ..................................................
45
................
................
170,822
8,541
725
7.70
0.38
0.17
0.06
0.02
................
..................
Notes: 1. The size standard is the maximum size for the NAICS industry considered by the SBA to be a small entity. 2. AD costs per airplane are 1 work hour ×
$85 + $85 reporting costs for initial inspection, for a total of $170.
1 Small Business Administration (SBA). 2022.
Table of Size Standards. Effective July 14, 2022.
https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-sizestandards.
2 Firm revenue and employee count are drawn
from online sources, including: Dun & Bradstreet,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:53 Jun 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
Inc. (www.dnb.com); Manta Media, Inc.
(www.manta.com); Buzzfile Media, Inc.
(www.buzzfile.com); Datanyze, Inc.
(www.datanyze.com); Moody’s Analytics
(start.cortera.com); GeneralLiabilityInsure.com
(generalliabilityinsure.com); Kona Equity
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(www.konaequity.com); and ZoomInfo Technologies
LLC (www.zoominfo.com).
3 These revenue data come from online sources
such as zoominfo.com, opencorporates.com,
buzzfile.com, manta.com, allbiz.com, and
lookupcompanyrevenue.com.
E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM
28JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
5. 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.
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,
(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 adding
the following new airworthiness
directive:
■
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier Inc. and
de Havilland, Inc.): Docket No. FAA–
2020–1076; Project Identifier MCAI–
2020–01201–A.
(a) Comments Due Date
The FAA must receive comments on this
airworthiness directive (AD) by August 14,
2023.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to Viking Air Limited
(type certificate previously held by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jun 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.)
Model DHC–3 airplanes, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category.
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)
Code 2700, Flight Control System.
(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,
wear, and fatigue-related degradation in
aging aircraft. The FAA is issuing this AD to
detect and address corrosion and cracking.
This condition, if not addressed, 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–3 Otter Supplemental Inspection and
Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1–3–5,
Revision IR, dated December 21, 2017
(Viking PSM 1–3–5, Revision IR). 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 1–3–5,
Revision IR, whichever occurs later. Where
Viking PSM 1–3–5, Revision IR, specifies
contacting Viking regarding a component’s
alloy and heat treat condition, this AD
requires contacting the Manager,
International Validation Branch, 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)(1): Viking DHC–3
Otter Service Bulletin V3/0010, Revision NC,
dated March 19, 2020, 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 1–3–5, Revision IR, at the times
specified in and in accordance with part 3,
paragraph 5, of Viking PSM 1–3–5, Revision
IR.
(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 1–3–5, Revision IR, in
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41869
accordance with part 3, paragraph 5, of
Viking PSM 1–3–5, Revision IR.
(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, International Validation
Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly
to the manager of the International Validation
Branch, mail it to the address identified in
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD or email to: 9AVS-AIR-730-AMOC@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, International Validation
Branch, FAA.
(j) Additional Information
(1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF–
2018–04, dated January 19, 2018, for related
information. This Transport Canada AD may
be found in the AD docket at regulations.gov
under Docket No. FAA–2020–1076.
(2) For more information about this AD,
contact Deep Gaurav, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 228–
3731; 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 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–3 Otter Supplemental
Inspection and Corrosion Control Manual,
PSM 1–3–5, Revision IR, dated December 21,
2017.
(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
E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM
28JNP1
41870
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 28, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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 June 21, 2023.
Michael Linegang,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–13617 Filed 6–27–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 73
[Docket No. FDA–2023–C–1487]
Filing of Color Additive Petition From
Environmental Defense Fund, et al.;
Request To Revoke Color Additive
Listing for Use of Titanium Dioxide in
Food; Extension of Comment Period
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
Notification of petition;
extension of comment period.
ACTION:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jun 27, 2023
Jkt 259001
Submit electronic comments in the
following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Comments submitted electronically,
including attachments, to https://
www.regulations.gov will be posted to
the docket unchanged. Because your
comment will be made public, you are
solely responsible for ensuring that your
comment does not include any
confidential information that you or a
third party may not wish to be posted,
such as medical information, your or
anyone else’s Social Security number, or
confidential business information, such
as a manufacturing process. Please note
that if you include your name, contact
information, or other information that
identifies you in the body of your
comments, that information will be
posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
• If you want to submit a comment
with confidential information that you
do not wish to be made available to the
public, submit the comment as a
written/paper submission and in the
manner detailed (see ‘‘Written/Paper
Submissions’’ and ‘‘Instructions’’).
Written/Paper Submissions
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA or we) is
extending the comment period for the
color additive petition for which we
published a notice of filing in the
Federal Register on May 3, 2023. In the
notice, FDA requested comments on a
filed color additive petition submitted
by Environmental Defense Fund, et al.,
proposing that FDA repeal the color
additive regulation providing for the use
of titanium dioxide in foods. We are
taking this action in response to
requests for an extension to allow
interested persons additional time to
submit comments.
DATES: FDA is extending the comment
period on the color additive petition for
which a notice of filing was published
in the Federal Register of May 3, 2023
(88 FR 27818). Either electronic or
written comments must be submitted by
September 1, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be
considered. The https://
www.regulations.gov electronic filing
system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of
September 1, 2023. Comments received
by mail/hand delivery/courier (for
written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are received
on or before that date.
SUMMARY:
Electronic Submissions
Submit written/paper submissions as
follows:
• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for
written/paper submissions): Dockets
Management Staff (HFA–305), Food and
Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• For written/paper comments
submitted to the Dockets Management
Staff, FDA will post your comment, as
well as any attachments, except for
information submitted, marked and
identified, as confidential, if submitted
as detailed in ‘‘Instructions.’’
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket No. FDA–
2023–C–1487 for ‘‘Filing of Color
Additive Petition From Environmental
Defense Fund, et al.; Request To Revoke
Color Additive Listing for Use of
Titanium Dioxide in Food.’’ Received
comments, those filed in a timely
manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed
in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ‘‘Confidential
Submissions,’’ publicly viewable at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the
Dockets Management Staff between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, 240–402–7500.
• Confidential Submissions—To
submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be
made publicly available, submit your
comments only as a written/paper
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
submission. You should submit two
copies total. One copy will include the
information you claim to be confidential
with a heading or cover note that states
‘‘THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.’’ We
will review this copy, including the
claimed confidential information, in our
consideration of comments. The second
copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/
blacked out, will be available for public
viewing and posted on https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff.
If you do not wish your name and
contact information to be made publicly
available, you can provide this
information on the cover sheet and not
in the body of your comments and you
must identify this information as
‘‘confidential.’’ Any information marked
as ‘‘confidential’’ will not be disclosed
except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20
and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA’s posting
of comments to public dockets, see 80
FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access
the information at: https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-201509-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or the
electronic and written/paper comments
received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the
heading of this document, into the
‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts
and/or go to the Dockets Management
Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852, 240–402–7500.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paulette M. Gaynor, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and
Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr.,
College Park, MD 20740, 240–402–1192.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Federal Register of May 3, 2023 (88 FR
27819), we published a notice of filing
of a color additive petition with a 60day comment period. We explained
that, under section 721(d)(1) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1)), we were giving
notice that we had filed a color additive
petition (CAP 3C0325), submitted by
Environmental Defense Fund, Center for
Environmental Health, Center for Food
Safety, Center for Science in the Public
Interest, and Environmental Working
Group, c/o Tom Neltner, 1875
Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20009. The color additive petition
proposes that we repeal the color
additive regulation for titanium dioxide
in 21 CFR 73.575, which permits the use
of titanium dioxide in foods.
E:\FR\FM\28JNP1.SGM
28JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 28, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41863-41870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13617]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2020-1076; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01201-A]
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 applied to all Viking Air Limited (Viking) (type
certificate previously held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.)
Model DHC-3 airplanes. This action revises the NPRM by changing the
required action specified in the proposed airworthiness directive (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 August 14, 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-2020-1076; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
[[Page 41864]]
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: Deep Gaurav, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817)
228-3731; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-1076; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-01201-A'' 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 Deep Gaurav, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 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 to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that
would apply to all Viking Model DHC-3 airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on February 8, 2022 (87 FR 7059). The NPRM was
prompted by AD CF-2018-04, dated January 19, 2018, issued by Transport
Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (referred to after
this as ``the MCAI''). The MCAI states that Viking developed 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 requires doing all inspections specified in Part 2 of
Viking DHC-3 Otter Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion Control
Manual, PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, dated December 21, 2017 (Viking PSM 1-
3-5, Revision IR), doing applicable corrective actions using Part 3 of
Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, and reporting to Viking Level 2 and
Level 3 corrosion as specified in Part 3 of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision
IR.
Corrosion, wear, and fatigue-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-2020-1076.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require establishing a corrosion
prevention and control program to identify and correct corrosion and
cracking. 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.
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 1-3-5, Revision IR.
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 three commenters. The commenters
were Taquan Air, Talkeetna Air Taxi, and an individual. The following
presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to
each comment.
Request To Withdraw the NPRM: Lack of Data on Corrosion-Related
Accidents
Taquan Air and an individual commenter stated that they were not
aware of any corrosion-related accidents involving the affected
airplanes. The individual commenter noted that ADs are supposed to be
driven by accidents and incidents that result in injury and/or death
and stated that if this is correct, then there is no justification for
the NPRMs that would be applicable to the Beavers [Model DHC-2
airplanes] and Otters [Model DHC-3 airplanes]. The individual commenter
asked how aviation would be made better by issuing the NPRMs that would
be applicable to two dependable and reliable airplanes. The FAA infers
that these 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
[[Page 41865]]
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 undetected
corrosion could exist and 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: Impact on Small Entities
Taquan Air and an individual commenter expressed concern regarding
the financial impact of the NPRM on small entities. The individual
commenter asked if the FAA considered the financial burden on
operators. This commenter explained that there are not enough mechanics
and asked how a company with Beavers and Otters could stay in business
trying to create and get two corrosion programs up at the same time and
maintain the flying aircraft. Taquan Air stated that the NPRM was
targeting a specific type of operator and would financially burden just
Beaver and Otter operators.
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 Supersede Certain ADs for Viking Model DHC-3 Airplanes
Talkeetna Air Taxi requested that the NPRM be revised to supersede
certain ADs for Viking Model DHC-3 airplanes that include inspections
requirements. The commenter explained that Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision
IR, is a broad and detailed document, and stated that if operators
chose to use Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, to establish a corrosion
control program, then the repetitive inspections required by those ADs
would be redundant and those AD should be superseded.
The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The FAA has
reviewed all potentially related ADs against the proposed requirements
in this SNPRM and determined that no ADs need to be superseded or
rescinded. If an operator identifies an inspection that it considers to
be redundant, the operator can request an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) by using the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of
this SNPRM.
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 Viking Model DHC-3 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 airplanes operating in Alaska have 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.
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-3 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-3 airplanes, 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 Requirements Based on Airplane Usage Conditions
Taquan Air asked if the operating environment, including the use of
floats, wheels, or skis, would be considered when the FAA reviewed the
corrosion prevention program. The FAA infers that the commenter is
requesting a change to the NPRM based on different airplane operational
usage.
The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request 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 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
Taquan Air and an individual commenter asked for clarity regarding
the process of creating and getting approval for a corrosion prevention
and control program. 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
[[Page 41866]]
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 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 commenter suggested
that the lack of guidance and procedures would leave room for
interpretation, leading to multiple exchanges with the FAA and an ever-
evolving process that could lead to significant delays and could ground
airplanes.
The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding the
creation of a corrosion prevention and control program and has
simplified the proposed actions. This SNPRM would require incorporating
the inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, into
the existing maintenance records. In Note 1 to paragraph (g) of the
NPRM, the use of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, 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) of the NPRM has been has re-
identified as Note 1 to paragraph (g) in this proposed AD.
The FAA also acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding delays
and timeliness of approving a prevention and control program, however,
since this proposed AD would require operators to incorporate the
inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, into the
existing maintenance records, those concerns should be mitigated.
Request To Allow Mechanics to Perform Certain Tasks
An individual commenter requested that ``properly trained
mechanics'' be allowed to perform the non-destructive testing (NDT)
inspections (tasks).
The FAA agrees with the commenter's request. 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 criteria for inspection
personnel doing NDT inspections. Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR,
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.
Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51
The FAA reviewed Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, which specifies
procedures for inspecting areas of the airplane that are particularly
susceptible to corrosion, wear, and fatigue-related degradation. Viking
PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, also specifies 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 also reviewed Viking DHC-3 Otter Service Bulletin V3/0010,
Revision NC, dated March 19, 2020. The service bulletin provides a list
of new inspection tasks that have been added to the DHC-3 maintenance
program in Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR.
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 and service information 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 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 1-3-5,
Revision IR, 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 1-3-5, Revision IR, whichever occurs later. This proposed AD would
also require reporting corrosion findings to Viking.
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.
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
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, wear, and fatigue-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 68 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 the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $5,780 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
[[Page 41867]]
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. 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 FAA issued an NPRM that proposed to adopt a new AD for Viking
Model DHC-3 airplanes. This proposed AD results from MCAI originated by
an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an
unsafe condition on an aviation product. The NPRM proposed to require
establishing a corrosion prevention and control program to identify and
correct corrosion and cracking. The NPRM also proposed to require
completing all of the initial tasks identified in the program and
reporting corrosion findings to Viking.
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-3 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
[[Page 41868]]
detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
3. 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 identified 68 Viking Model DHC-3 airplanes that would be
affected by the proposed AD. These 68 airplanes are registered to 32
private firms and 5 individuals. The individuals are excluded from this
analysis as they presumably are not small entities under the RFA.
The 32 private firms own 63 airplanes. Of these firms, the FAA was
able to obtain the data necessary to classify 21 of them.\2\ All but
one firm qualify as small entities under the RFA. Thus, the FAA
estimates that this rule would impact 20 small entities. For these 20
small entities, the results of the of the cost impact analysis are
shown in Table 1, ``Cost Impact on Small Entities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Firm revenue and employee count are drawn from online
sources, including: Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (www.dnb.com); Manta
Media, Inc. (www.manta.com); Buzzfile Media, Inc.
(www.buzzfile.com); Datanyze, Inc. (www.datanyze.com); Moody's
Analytics (start.cortera.com); GeneralLiabilityInsure.com
(generalliabilityinsure.com); Kona Equity (www.konaequity.com); and
ZoomInfo Technologies LLC (www.zoominfo.com).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
The FAA estimates that the AD costs per airplane would be 1 work
hour plus $85 in reporting costs for the initial inspection, for a
total of $170. 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 shows, the
mean cost impact is 0.1% of annual revenues,\3\ with a maximum impact
of 0.46% of annual revenues, and a minimum impact below 0.01%. This
impact did not vary with firm size; the largest cost impact was only
0.5%, which is still not considered significant. Costs under 1% of
revenues for all of the small entities lead the FAA to conclude that
this proposed rule would s not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ These revenue data come from online sources such as
zoominfo.com, opencorporates.com, buzzfile.com, manta.com,
allbiz.com, and lookupcompanyrevenue.com.
Table 1--Cost Impact on Small Entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost/
Firm No. Acft Revenue Cost revenue NAICS Size standard NAICS industry
($1,000) ($1,000) (%) code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMIT LEASING LLC....................... 3 $110 $0.2 0.00 532490 $35 mn................... Other Comm'l and Industrial
Mach. and Equip. Rental &
Leasing.
KATMAI AIR LLC........................... 2 117 0.2 0.00 532411 $40 mn................... Comm'l Air, Rail, and Water
Transp. Equip. Rental &
Leasing.
JESPERSEN AIRCRAFT SERVICES INC.......... 1 113 1.9 0.00 481219 $22 mn................... Other Nonscheduled Air
Transportation.
DOYON AIR TRANSPORT LLC.................. 1 127 1.0 0.01 488999 $22 mn................... All Other Support
Activities for
Transportation.
RED LEASING LLC.......................... 2 359 0.2 0.01 532490 $35 mn................... Other Comm'l and Industrial
Mach. and Equip. Rental &
Leasing.
RAINBOW KING LODGE INC................... 1 209 0.2 0.02 721199 $8 mn.................... All Other Traveler
Accommodation.
PANTECHNICON AVIATION LTD................ 1 235 0.2 0.02 532411 $40 mn................... Comm'l Air, Rail, and Water
Transp. Equip. Rental &
Leasing.
EMERALD AIR SERVICE INC.................. 1 250 1.0 0.02 481219 $22 mn................... Other Nonscheduled Air
Transportation.
BLUE AIRCRAFT LLC........................ 2 750 0.2 0.02 483000 1,500 emp................ Scheduled Passenger Air
Transportation.
TALON AIR SERVICE INC.................... 1 520 0.2 0.02 481219 $22 mn................... Other Nonscheduled Air
Transportation.
BALD MOUNTAIN AIR SERVICE INC............ 1 700 0.2 0.03 481219 $22 mn................... Other Nonscheduled Air
Transportation.
NORTHWEST SEAPLANES INC.................. 1 750 0.3 0.05 481111 1,500 emp................ Scheduled Passenger Air
Transportation.
TALKEETNA AIR TAXI INC................... 6 4,600 0.2 0.07 481211 1,500 emp................ Nonscheduled Chartered
Passenger Air
Transportation.
GOLDEN EAGLE OUTFITTERS INC.............. 1 960 0.2 0.07 713990 $8 mn.................... All Other Amusement and
Recreation Industries.
MUNICH HANS W DBA........................ 1 998 0.2 0.08 481219 $22 mn................... Other Nonscheduled Air
Transportation.
DESTINATION ALASKA ADVENTURE CO LLC...... 1 1,300 0.3 0.09 481211 1,500 emp................ Nonscheduled Chartered
Passenger Air
Transportation.
RUSTAIR INC.............................. 6 10,224 0.2 0.13 532411 $40 mn................... Comm'l Air, Rail, and Water
Transp. Equip. Rental &
Leasing.
KENMORE AIR HARBOR LLC................... 11 51,500 0.2 0.15 481111 1,500 emp................ Scheduled Passenger Air
Transportation.
RAPIDS CAMP LODGE INC.................... 1 7,000 0.3 0.29 721214 $8 mn.................... Recreational and Vacation
Camps (except
Campgrounds).
BANK OF UTAH TRUSTEE..................... 1 90,000 0.5 0.46 522110 $750 mn in assets........ Commercial Banking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ 45 170,822 7.70
Average.............................. ......... 8,541 0.38 0.06
Median............................... ......... 725 0.17 0.02 ......... ......................... ...........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: 1. The size standard is the maximum size for the NAICS industry considered by the SBA to be a small entity. 2. AD costs per airplane are 1 work
hour x $85 + $85 reporting costs for initial inspection, for a total of $170.
[[Page 41869]]
5. 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.
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,
(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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive:
Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier
Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2020-1076; Project
Identifier MCAI-2020-01201-A.
(a) Comments Due Date
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by August 14, 2023.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to Viking Air Limited (type certificate
previously held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Model
DHC-3 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2700, Flight Control
System.
(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, wear,
and fatigue-related degradation in aging aircraft. The FAA is
issuing this AD to detect and address corrosion and cracking. This
condition, if not addressed, 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-3 Otter
Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1-3-5,
Revision IR, dated December 21, 2017 (Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision
IR). 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 1-3-5, Revision IR,
whichever occurs later. Where Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR,
specifies contacting Viking regarding a component's alloy and heat
treat condition, this AD requires contacting the Manager,
International Validation Branch, 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)(1): Viking DHC-3 Otter Service Bulletin
V3/0010, Revision NC, dated March 19, 2020, 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 1-3-5, Revision IR, at the times specified in and in
accordance with part 3, paragraph 5, of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision
IR.
(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 1-3-5,
Revision IR, in accordance with part 3, paragraph 5, of Viking PSM
1-3-5, Revision IR.
(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, mail
it to 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,
International Validation Branch, FAA.
(j) Additional Information
(1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2018-04, dated January 19,
2018, for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found
in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2020-1076.
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Deep Gaurav,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 228-3731; 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 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-3 Otter Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion
Control Manual, PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, dated December 21, 2017.
(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
[[Page 41870]]
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 June 21, 2023.
Michael Linegang,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-13617 Filed 6-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
