Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland Inc.) Airplanes, 67629-67636 [2023-21631]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
auxiliary power unit (APU), which caused
fuel leakage in the APU compartment. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address the
cracked fuel control unit housing assemblies.
The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
result in an uncommanded APU in-flight
shutdown, or fire in the APU compartment,
which could result in damage to the airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2023–0057
(1) Where EASA AD 2023–0057 refers to its
effective date; this AD requires using the
effective date of this AD.
(2) This AD does not adopt the ‘‘Remarks’’
section of EASA AD 2023–0057.
(3) Where EASA AD 2023–0057 defines
‘‘the SB,’’ for this AD, operators must use
Honeywell Service Bulletin GTCP331–49–
7954, dated December 19, 2007.
(i) Additional AD Provisions
The following provisions also apply to this
AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): 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
responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly
to the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: 9-AVS-AIR-730-AMOC@faa.gov.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of
the responsible Flight Standards Office.
(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any
requirement in this AD to obtain instructions
from a manufacturer, the instructions must
be accomplished using a method approved
by the Manager, International Validation
Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS’s
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
If approved by the DOA, the approval must
include the DOA-authorized signature.
(3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except
as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if
any service information contains procedures
or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply
with this AD; any procedures or tests that are
not identified as RC are recommended. Those
procedures and tests that are not identified
as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator’s
maintenance or inspection program without
obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can
be done and the airplane can be put back in
an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or
16:36 Sep 29, 2023
Jkt 262001
For more information about this AD,
contact Timothy Dowling, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 206–
231–3667; email Timothy.P.Dowling@faa.gov.
(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 this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD 2023–0057, dated March 16,
2023.
(ii) Honeywell Service Bulletin GTCP331–
49–7954, dated December 19, 2007.
(3) For EASA AD 2023–0057, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668
Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999
000; email ADs@easa.europa.eu; website
easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA AD
on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
(4) For Honeywell service information
identified in this AD, contact Honeywell
International, Inc., 111 South 34th Street,
Phoenix, AZ 85034; phone: (800) 601–3099;
fax: (602) 365–5577; website:
myaerospace.honeywell.com/wps/portal.
(5) You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call
206–231–3195.
(6) You may view this material that is
incorporated by reference at the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, email
fr.inspection@nara.gov, or go to:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.
Issued on September 15, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–21635 Filed 9–29–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
(j) Additional Information
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference
(g) Requirements
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this
AD: Comply with all required actions and
compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023–0057, dated
March 16, 2023 (EASA AD 2023–0057).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
changes to procedures or tests identified as
RC require approval of an AMOC.
67629
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2022–0190; Project
Identifier 2019–CE–048–AD; Amendment
39–22556; AD 2023–19–06]
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: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The FAA is superseding
Airworthiness Directive (AD) 64–09–03,
which applied to all de Havilland (type
certificate now held by Viking Air
Limited (Viking)) Model DHC–2
‘‘Beaver’’ airplanes. AD 64–09–03
required inspecting the aileron mass
balance weight arms for cracks and
corrosion and replacing any damaged
part. Since the FAA issued AD 64–09–
03, Transport Canada superseded its
mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) to correct an unsafe
condition on these products. This AD
requires incorporating into the existing
maintenance records for your airplane
the actions and associated thresholds
and intervals, including life limits,
specified in a supplemental inspection
and corrosion control manual for Model
DHC–2 airplanes. This AD also requires
completing all of the initial tasks
identified in this manual and reporting
certain corrosion findings to Viking. The
actions in this supplemental inspection
and corrosion control manual include
the inspection of the aileron balance
weight arms required by AD 64–09–03.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.
DATES: This AD is effective November 6,
2023.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of a certain publication listed in this AD
as of November 6, 2023.
ADDRESSES:
AD Docket: You may examine the AD
docket at regulations.gov under Docket
No. FAA–2022–0190; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this final rule, the MCAI, any
comments received, and other
information. The address for Docket
Operations is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM
02OCR1
67630
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
Material Incorporated by Reference:
• For service information identified
in this final rule, contact Viking Air
Limited Technical Support, 1959 de
Havilland Way, Sidney, British
Columbia, Canada V8L 5V5; phone:
(800) 663–8444; fax: (250) 656–0673;
email: technical.support@vikingair.com;
website: vikingair.com/support/servicebulletins.
• You may view this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety
Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO
64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call (817) 222–5110.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Delisio, Continued Operational
Safety Program Manager, FAA, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; phone: (516) 228–7321;
email: 9-avs-nyaco-cos@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Background
The FAA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to supersede AD
64–09–03, Amendment 718 (29 FR
5390, April 22, 1964) (AD 64–09–03).
AD 64–09–03 applied to all de
Havilland (type certificate now held by
Viking Air Limited) Model DHC–2
‘‘Beaver’’ airplanes. AD 64–09–03
required repetitively inspecting the
aileron mass balance weight arms for
cracks and corrosion and replacing any
damaged part. AD 64–09–03 resulted
from cracks and corrosion found on
aileron mass balance weight arm part
numbers (P/Ns) C2WA151, C2WA152,
C2WA127, and C2WA128. The FAA
issued AD 64–09–03 to address
corrosion-related degradation of the
aileron mass balance weight arms
which, if not addressed, could lead to
structural failure with consequent loss
of control of the airplane.
The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on February 8, 2022 (87 FR
7065); corrected February 18, 2022 (87
FR 9274). The NPRM was prompted by
AD CF–2019–25, dated July 19, 2019
(referred to after this as the MCAI),
issued by Transport Canada, which is
the aviation authority for Canada. The
MCAI states that it supersedes prior
Transport Canada ADs related to a
supplementary inspection and corrosion
control program for aging airplanes,
which identifies specific locations of an
airplane that must be inspected to
ensure corrosion-related degradation
does not result in an unsafe condition.
The MCAI continues to require the tasks
included in the initial issue of Viking,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Sep 29, 2023
Jkt 262001
DHC–2 Beaver Supplemental Inspection
and Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1–
2–5, dated June 21, 2017, and requires
additional inspections for components
of airframe systems other than flight
controls, which are included in Viking
DHC–2 Beaver Supplemental Inspection
and Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1–
2–5, Revision 1, dated January 10, 2019
(Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1).
Corrosion-related degradation, if not
addressed, could lead to structural
failure with consequent loss of control
of the airplane.
You may examine the MCAI in the
AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA–2022–0190.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to
require establishing a corrosion
prevention and control program
approved by the FAA. In the NPRM, the
FAA also proposed to require
completing all of the initial tasks
identified in the program and reporting
corrosion findings to Viking.
The FAA issued a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM)
to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede
AD 64–09–03. The SNPRM published in
the Federal Register on April 25, 2023
(88 FR 24927). The SNPRM was
prompted by the FAA’s decision to
revise the proposed actions specified in
the NPRM and to reopen 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. In the SNPRM, the FAA
proposed to require incorporating into
the existing maintenance records for
your airplane the actions and associated
thresholds and intervals, including life
limits, specified in Parts 2 and 3 of
Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1,
completing all the initial tasks
identified in Viking PSM 1–2–5,
Revision 1, and reporting to Viking any
Level 2 or Level 3 corrosion findings.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.
Discussion of Final Airworthiness
Directive
Comments
The FAA received comments from
three individuals. The following
presents the comments received on the
SNPRM and the FAA’s response to each
comment.
Request To Withdraw NPRM and
SNPRM
One individual commenter requested
that the FAA reconsider issuing the
proposed AD and a second individual
commenter requested that the FAA
withdraw the proposed rulemaking. The
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
first commenter noted that during an
annual inspection, a licensed Airframe
and Powerplant (A&P) mechanic can
determine if an airplane has been
properly maintained and if corrosion is
present. This commenter indicated that,
by issuing the proposed AD, the FAA
would force many operators and pilots
to give up their airplanes due to
exorbitant costs. This commenter stated
that because one or two airplanes were
found with extensive corrosion, all
Model DHC–2 airplanes should not be
placed in the same category and that
‘‘the Beaver’’ is one of the finest built
airplanes and should be respected as
such.
The second individual commenter
stated that the FAA must stop broad
brushing all airplanes of a certain build
as the same. The commenter noted that
a Model DHC–2 ‘‘Beaver’’ built in 1948
is not the same as one built in 1967 and
that the lifetime use of service and
environmental conditions determine an
airplane’s risk factors. The commenter
explained that many Beavers have
thousands of pages of flight records
spanning over 70 years that allow
owners and maintainers to subjectively
evaluate an airplane’s condition and
operating environments; therefore,
based on the points above, the FAA
should immediately withdraw the
proposed rulemaking because it lacks
merit.
The FAA acknowledges the
commenters’ concerns regarding the
impact this final rule will have on
operators and pilots. As noted by the
first commenter, Model DHC–2
airplanes are currently required to
perform annual and 100-hour
inspections, including inspections for
corrosion, that are required by the
Federal Aviation Regulations. The FAA
does not agree that these current
regulations require the same inspections
as those proposed in the SNPRM. The
inspections proposed in the SNPRM are
focused on certain areas of the airplane
and are more detailed than those
covered in the required annual or 100hour inspections. The inspections
required by this AD are part of a
supplemental inspection and corrosion
prevention program that is included in
Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1–2–5,
Revision 1. These inspection types and
intervals address locations or parts that
are not currently required to be
inspected as part of annual or 100-hour
inspections in existing regulations.
These new inspections and intervals are
needed to detect and address corrosion,
which could lead to structural failure
with consequent loss of control of the
airplane.
E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM
02OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
The FAA also acknowledges the first
commenter’s concern regarding the
‘‘exorbitant cost’’ of complying with the
requirements of this AD that could
result in operators and pilots having to
give up their airplanes. 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 final rule
includes undetected corrosion, which
could lead to structural failure and
consequent loss of control of the
airplane. Inspections and repairs are
therefore necessary to detect and correct
such corrosion before it leads to
structural failure.
In response to both commenters’
statements that all Model DHC–2
airplanes should not be placed in the
same category, the FAA has determined
that an unsafe condition exists or is
likely to exist or develop in other
products of the same type design. In this
case, the FAA independently reviewed
the MCAI and related service
information and determined an unsafe
condition exists and an AD is needed to
address that unsafe condition. Further,
it is within the FAA’s authority and
responsibility to issue ADs to require
actions to address unsafe conditions
that are not otherwise being addressed
(or are not addressed adequately) by
routine maintenance procedures.
The FAA has not changed this AD
regarding this issue.
Request for Clarification Regarding
Conflicting AD Requirements for the
Affected Models
One individual commenter requested
clarification regarding what operators
should do if there are conflicts between
the requirements specified in the
SNPRM and the requirements of
existing ADs for the affected airplanes.
The commenter noted that AD 2008–11–
11, Amendment 39–15533 (73 FR
34611, June 18, 2008) (AD 2008–11–11)
specifies a fluorescent penetrant
inspection for cracks in the front spar
center section web of the tailplane,
while task C55–10–02 in Viking PSM 1–
2–5, Revision 1, allows using a
fluorescent penetrant or an eddy current
inspection, which seems contradictory.
The FAA acknowledges the
commenter’s concern. The FAA has
reviewed all potentially related ADs
against the proposed requirements in
the SNPRM and determined that other
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Sep 29, 2023
Jkt 262001
than AD 64–09–03, no other ADs need
to be superseded or rescinded. Any
other ADs involving inspections for
corrosion on the affected airplanes
require either inspections for different
parts or locations on an airplane or the
inspections are not as in-depth or
repetitive; therefore, they do not overlap
with the inspections required by this
AD. This includes the requirements of
AD 2008–11–11, which requires
inspecting a different airplane part than
the part specified in task C55–10–02 of
Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1.
The FAA has not changed this AD
regarding this issue.
Request To Revise Requirements Based
on Airplane Usage Conditions
One individual commenter requested
that the SNPRM be revised to provide
different requirements based on how an
airplane is used. The commenter
suggested that instead of using a broad
approach and including all Model DHC–
2 airplanes, the FAA should use a
logical evaluation process and consider
the following parameters to determine if
an airplane’s airworthiness might be
compromised due to corrosion:
operating environment (exposure to
saltwater); commercial or private use;
stress on the airframe due to repetitive
flights with heavy loads; total flight
hours on the airframe; airplane history
(has it been partially or completely
rebuilt); and maintenance history.
The FAA disagrees with the
commenter’s request to change the
SNPRM 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 an airplane’s entire flight or
maintenance history. Without this
detailed knowledge of each airplane, it
would be impossible for the FAA to
develop a special set of inspections
based on airplane usage conditions.
However, operators may submit a
proposal for revised requirements by
requesting an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) using the
procedures specified in paragraph (i) of
this AD.
The FAA has not changed this AD
regarding this issue.
Request To Revise Costs of Compliance
One individual commenter requested
that the FAA revise the labor rate in the
Costs of Compliance section of the
SNPRM. The commenter noted that the
FAA’s estimate of $85 per hour is not
accurate and that the current labor rate
for an experienced DHC–2/3 airplane
mechanic is greater than $110 per hour,
depending on where in the United
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
67631
States the work is being performed. The
commenter also mentioned that public
comments on the NPRM that is related
to the SNPRM stated that DHC–2
mechanic rates are $110 to $150 per
hour, depending on the geographic
regions where the work is being
performed. The commenter added that
the proposed costs do not consider the
current shortage of qualified mechanics
able to do the inspections.
The FAA agrees that the labor rate of
$85 per work-hour is dated but
disagrees with the commenter’s estimate
of $110 to $150 per hour. The FAA
notes that the current wage rate for
aviation mechanics as provided by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, found at
www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oes493011.htm, after accounting for
fringe benefits that are valued at roughly
50% of the nominal wage, is lower than
the estimated fully burdened labor rate
(a labor rate with fringe benefits
included) of $85 per work-hour;
therefore, the FAA is unable to justify
increasing the labor rate from $85 per
work-hour. The FAA continues to use
the higher $85 per work-hour figure in
order to provide a conservative estimate
of the costs.
Regarding the commenter’s statement
that the wage rate for DHC–2 mechanics
varies geographically, the commenter
did not provide any documentation or
references to support this statement.
Furthermore, unless the distribution of
DHC–2 airplanes also varies along the
same geography, using an average rate
captures the average effect, including
any higher wages; therefore, the FAA
has not added a geographical
adjustment into its assessment.
The FAA acknowledges the
commenter’s concerns regarding labor
shortages, although this does not affect
the cost of this final rule.
The FAA has not changed this AD
regarding this issue.
Conclusion
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 referenced
above. The FAA reviewed the relevant
data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety
requires adopting this AD as proposed.
Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD
to address the unsafe condition on these
products. Except for minor editorial
changes, this AD is adopted as proposed
in the SNPRM.
E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM
02OCR1
67632
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
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 AD, however, requires
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.
Costs of Compliance
The FAA estimates that this AD
affects 409 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA also estimates that it will take
about 1 work-hour per airplane at a
labor rate of $85 per work-hour to revise
the existing maintenance records.
Based on these figures, the FAA
estimates the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $34,765 or $85 per
airplane.
The FAA estimates it will take about
1 work-hour to report any Level 2
corrosion found during the initial or
subsequent inspections or any Level 3
corrosion found during the initial or
subsequent inspections, for an estimated
cost of $85 per airplane.
Other Related Service Information
The FAA reviewed Viking DHC–2
Beaver Service Bulletin V2/0011,
Revision NC, dated November 28, 2019.
This service information provides a list
of new inspection tasks that have been
added to the DHC–2 supplementary
inspection and corrosion control
program, Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1.
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.
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 final rule (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-related degradation in
aging aircraft, which could lead to
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
Related Service Information Under 1
CFR Part 51
The FAA reviewed Viking PSM 1–2–
5, Revision 1, which specifies
procedures for inspecting locations of
the airplane that are particularly
susceptible to corrosion-related
degradation and includes repetitive
inspection intervals, defines the
different levels of corrosion, and
provides corrective action if corrosion is
found.
This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties
have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means
identified in ADDRESSES.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
structural failure with consequent loss
of control of the airplane, outweighs any
impact on aviation in Alaska.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Sep 29, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 objectives of the rule and of
applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and
informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.
To achieve this principle, agencies are
required to solicit and consider flexible
regulatory proposals and to explain the
rationale for their actions to assure that
such proposals are given serious
consideration. The RFA covers a widerange of small entities, including small
businesses, not-for-profit organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to
determine whether a rule will have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If
the agency determines that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis as described in the
RFA.
The FAA published an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
for this rule to aid the public in
commenting on the potential impacts to
small entities. The FAA considered the
public comments in developing the final
rule and this Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). A FRFA
must contain the following:
(1) A statement of the need for, and
objectives of, the rule;
(2) A statement of the significant
issues raised by the public comments in
response to the IRFA, a statement of the
assessment of the agency of such issues,
and a statement of any changes made in
the proposed rule as a result of such
comments;
(3) The response of the agency to any
comments filed by the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA) in response to the
proposed rule, and a detailed statement
of any change made to the proposed rule
in the final rule as a result of the
comments;
(4) A description of and an estimate
of the number of small entities to which
the rule will apply or an explanation of
why no such estimate is available;
E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM
02OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
(5) A description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the
proposed rule, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities which will
be subject to the requirement and the
type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record; and
(6) A description of the steps the
agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small
entities consistent with the stated
objectives of applicable statutes,
including a statement of the factual,
policy, and legal reasons for selecting
the alternative adopted in the final rule
and why each of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by
the agency which affect the impact on
small entities was rejected.
1. Need for and Objectives of the Rule
The NPRM proposed to supersede AD
64–09–03, which applied to all de
Havilland (type certificate now held by
Viking) Model DHC–2 ‘‘Beaver’’
airplanes, because after the FAA issued
AD 64–09–03, Transport Canada
superseded its MCAI to identify specific
locations of an airplane that must be
inspected to ensure corrosion-related
degradation does not result in an unsafe
condition. This final rule requires
incorporating into the existing
maintenance records for your airplane
the actions and associated thresholds
and intervals, including life limits,
specified in a supplemental inspection
and corrosion control manual for Model
DHC–2 airplanes. This final rule also
requires completing all the initial tasks
identified in this manual and reporting
certain corrosion findings to Viking. The
actions in this supplemental inspection
and corrosion control manual include
the inspection of the aileron balance
weight arms required by AD 64–09–03.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
2. Significant Issues Raised in Public
Comments
The FAA received comments related
to costs from three individual
commenters. The following presents the
significant issues in the comments
received on the SNPRM and the FAA’s
response to each comment.
Request To Revise Requirements Based
on Airplane Usage Conditions
Two commenters requested that the
SNPRM be revised to have different
requirements based on how the airplane
is used, including but not limited to
corrosion level, operating environment
(e.g., near salt water), commercial or
private use, and airplane history.
The FAA disagrees with the
commenters’ requests to change the
SNPRM based on airplane operational
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Sep 29, 2023
Jkt 262001
usage. There is no current requirement
to track the hours spent flying in
different conditions or types of water.
Additionally, operators may not know
an airplane’s entire flight or
maintenance history. 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 AD. The FAA has not changed this
AD regarding this issue.
Request To Revise Costs of Compliance:
Labor Rate
One commenter requested that the
FAA revise the labor rate in the Costs of
Compliance section of the SNPRM. The
commenter noted that current labor
rates are anywhere from $110 to $150
per hour and added that the proposed
costs do not consider the current
shortage of qualified mechanics able to
do the inspections.
The FAA agrees that the labor rate of
$85 per work-hour provided in the
SNPRM is dated but disagrees with the
provided estimate of $110 to $150 per
hour provided by the commenter. The
FAA notes that the current wage rate for
aviation mechanics as provided by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, found at
www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oes493011.htm, after accounting for
fringe benefits that are valued at roughly
50% of the nominal wage, is lower than
the estimated fully burdened labor rate
(a labor rate with fringe benefits
included) of $85 per work-hour.
Therefore, the FAA is unable to justify
increasing the labor rate from $85 per
work-hour. The FAA continues to use
the higher $85 per work-hour figure in
order to provide a conservative estimate
of the costs.
The commenter also indicated that
the wage rate for DHC–2 mechanics
varies geographically but did not
provide any documentation or
references to support this statement.
Furthermore, unless the distribution of
DHC–2 airplanes also varies along the
same geography, using an average rate
captures the average effect, including
any higher wages; therefore, the FAA
has not added a geographical
adjustment into its assessment.
3. Response to SBA Comments
The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the SBA did not file any comments in
response to the SNPRM. Thus, the FAA
did not make any changes to this final
rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
67633
4. Small Entities to Which the Rule Will
Apply
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 SBA to
define ‘‘small business’’ by issuing
regulations.
SBA (2022) has established size
standards for various types of economic
activities, or industries, under the North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS).1 These size standards
generally define small businesses based
on the number of employees or annual
receipts.
The FAA Civil Aircraft Registry
shows 409 Model DHC–2 Mk. I, DHC–
2 Mk. II, and DHC–2 Mk. III airplanes
that will be affected by this AD. These
409 airplanes are registered to 235
private businesses, 76 individuals, and
3 government agencies. The 76
individuals and 3 government agencies
are excluded from this analysis as the
RFA does not apply to individuals and
the 3 government agencies are not small
entities as defined by the RFA.2
Three hundred nineteen (319)
airplanes are owned and operated by
235 private entities. A sample of 50
private businesses was randomly
selected for the analysis.3 Of the 50
sampled entities, 45 were found to be
small. The results of the cost impact
analysis for these 45 small entities are
shown in Table 1 and will be discussed
in the following section.
As can be seen, the impacts range
from nearly 0%, to a maximum of 0.5%.
The average impact is 0.1%, and the
median impact rounds to 0.0%. As
1 Small Business Administration (SBA). 2022.
Table of Size Standards. Effective July 14, 2022.
https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-sizestandards.
2 Two airplanes are registered to the U.S.
Department of the Interior. Five airplanes are
registered to the United States Forest Service,
within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Two
airplanes are registered to the State of Alaska to the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game. These
government agencies and are not small entities
under the RFA.
3 The sample was selected by shuffling the order
of the list of 409 DHC–2 airplanes in the FAA
Registry and going down the randomized list. If
revenue and employee count data were available, it
was included in the sample; otherwise, it was
excluded. This process was repeated until 50 firms,
for which revenue and employee data were
available, had been added to the sample. The
shuffling was accomplished by giving each entry in
the registry an index value between 0 and 1 using
Excel’s RAND function. The entries were then
sorted by that index value to randomize their order.
E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM
02OCR1
67634
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
such, the FAA has determined that this
rule will not significantly impact a
substantial number of small entities.
TABLE 1—COST IMPACT ON SMALL ENTITIES
FAA Registry
type
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Operator
DHC–2
A/C
Revenues
($1,000)
Cost
Cost/
revenue
(%)
NAICS
code
Size
standard
NAICS industry
Recreational and Vacation
Camps (except Campgrounds).
All Other Professional, Scientific
and Technical Services.
Offices of Other Holding Companies.
Offices of Lawyers.
Other Comm’l & Ind. Machinery
and Equip. Rental & Leasing.
Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation.
Comm’l Air, Rail, & Water
Transp. Equip. Rental and
Leasing.
Search, Detect., Nav., Guid.,
Aero., & Naut. Systems &
Inst. Mfg.
Office Administrative Services.
ALASKAS FISHING UNLIMITED
INC.
Non-Citizen
Corp.
1
79
$170.0
0.2
721214
$8 mn .........
DOUGLAS AVIATION LTD ........
Corporation ......
2
90
340.0
0.4
541990
$17 mn .......
NORTHSTAR HOLDINGS LLC
LLC ..................
3
110
510.0
0.5
551112
$40 mn .......
RHK OF KANSAS ......................
SUMMIT LEASING LLC ............
Corporation ......
LLC ..................
1
1
110
110
170.0
170.0
0.2
0.2
541110
532490
$13.5 mn ....
$35 mn .......
JESPERSEN AIRCRAFT SERVICES INC.
KATMAI AIR LLC .......................
Corporation ......
3
113
510.0
0.4
481219
$22 mn .......
LLC ..................
1
117
170.0
0.1
532411
$40 mn .......
MUSTANG HIGH FLIGHT LLC
LLC ..................
1
127
170.0
0.1
334511
1250 emp ...
FLIGHT MANAGEMENT LLC ....
LLC ..................
2
161
340.0
0.2
561110
$11 mn .......
NEWHALEN LODGE INC ..........
Corporation ......
3
165
510.0
0.3
721199
$8 mn .........
4R AVIATION LLC .....................
RAINBOW KING LODGE INC ...
LLC ..................
Corporation ......
1
2
177
209
170.0
340.0
0.1
0.2
336411
721199
1500 emp ...
$8 mn .........
DOYON AIRCRAFT LEASING
LLC.
LLC ..................
1
250
170.0
0.1
532411
$40 mn .......
KENMORE CREW LEASING
INC TRUSTEE.
COMANCHE FIGHTERS LLC ...
Corporation ......
1
278
170.0
0.1
532490
$35 mn .......
LLC ..................
1
301
170.0
0.1
813930
$14.5 mn ....
BAY AIR INC .............................
Corporation ......
1
307
170.0
0.1
481111
1500 emp ...
COYOTE AIR LLC .....................
LLC ..................
2
310
340.0
0.1
481211
1500 emp ...
KINGFISHER AIR INC ...............
Corporation ......
1
366
170.0
0.0
481219
$22 mn .......
ASSOCIATED LEASING LLC ...
LLC ..................
1
500
170.0
0.0
532490
$35 mn .......
TIKCHIK NARROWS LODGE
INC.
Corporation ......
3
720
510.0
0.1
721214
$8 mn .........
NORTHWEST SEAPLANES
INC.
SNOW MOUNTAIN ENTERPRISES LLC.
ISLAND WINGS AIR SERVICE
LLC.
TVPX AIRCRAFT SOLUTIONS
INC TRUSTEE.
SHELDON AIR SERVICE LLC ..
Corporation ......
3
750
510.0
0.1
481111
1500 emp ...
LLC ..................
1
750
170.0
0.0
532000
$8 mn .........
LLC ..................
2
956
340.0
0.0
481211
1500 emp ...
Corporation ......
3
1,157
510.0
0.0
336310
1000 emp ...
LLC ..................
1
1,400
170.0
0.0
481219
$22 mn .......
TALKEETNA AIR TAXI INC ......
Corporation ......
1
1,635
170.0
0.0
481219
$22 mn .......
NO SEE UM LODGE INC .........
Corporation ......
3
2,036
510.0
0.0
721214
$8 mn .........
WARD AIR INC ..........................
Corporation ......
4
2,191
680.0
0.0
481219
$22 mn .......
HISTORIC FLIGHT FOUNDATION.
LAKE HAVASU SEAPLANES
LLC.
RDJ BROTHERS TRUCKING
INC.
SEAWIND AVIATION INC .........
Corporation ......
1
2,500
340.0
0.0
712110
$30 mn .......
Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation.
Museums.
LLC ..................
1
2,500
170.0
0.0
611000
$8 mn .........
Educational Services, N.F.S.
Corporation ......
1
2,500
170.0
0.0
236000
$39.5 mn ....
Construction of buildings, N.F.S.
Corporation ......
2
2,500
170.0
0.0
481211
1500 emp ...
TIKCHIK AIRVENTURES LLC ..
LLC ..................
1
2,500
170.0
0.0
481211
1500 emp ...
WOLF TRAIL LODGE INC ........
ANDREW AIRWAYS INC ..........
Corporation ......
Corporation ......
1
3
2,500
2,576
170.0
510.0
0.0
0.0
721000
485999
$8 mn .........
$16.5 mn ....
Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transp.
Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transp.
Accommodation, N.F.S.
All Other Transit and Ground
Passenger Transportation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Sep 29, 2023
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM
02OCR1
All Other Traveler Accommodation.
Aircraft Manufacturing.
All Other Traveler Accommodation.
Comm’l Air, Rail, & Water
Transp. Equip. Rental and
Leasing.
Other Comm’l & Ind. Machinery
and Equip. Rental & Leasing.
Labor Unions and Similar Labor
Organizations.
Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation.
Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transp.
Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation.
Other Comm’l & Ind. Machinery
and Equip. Rental & Leasing.
Recreational and Vacation
Camps (except Campgrounds).
Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation.
Rental and Leasing Services,
N.F.S.
Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transp.
Motor Vehicle Gasoline Engine
and Engine Parts Mfg.
Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation.
Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation.
Recreational and Vacation
Camps (except Campgrounds).
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
67635
TABLE 1—COST IMPACT ON SMALL ENTITIES—Continued
FAA Registry
type
Operator
DHC–2
A/C
Revenues
($1,000)
Cost
Cost/
revenue
(%)
NAICS
code
Size
standard
NAICS industry
ALASKAS ENCHANTED LAKE
LODGE INC.
Corporation ......
2
2,729
340.0
0.0
721310
$12.5 mn ....
Rooming & Boarding Houses,
Dormitories, and Workers’
Camps.
RAINBOW RIVER LODGE LLC
LLC ..................
2
4,000
340.0
0.0
721214
$8 mn .........
K BAY AIR LLC .........................
LLC ..................
1
4,427
170.0
0.0
481219
$22 mn .......
RAPIDS CAMP LODGE INC .....
Corporation ......
1
7,000
170.0
0.0
713990
$8 mn .........
PROGRESSIVE PLASTICS INC
Corporation ......
1
7,500
170.0
0.0
326199
750 emp .....
BROWN HELICOPTER INC ......
Corporation ......
1
9,000
170.0
0.0
336412
1500 emp ...
PERRYCOOK FLIGHT SERVICES LLC.
KOMRO INTERNATIONAL LLC
LLC ..................
1
12,500
170.0
0.0
481211
1500 emp ...
LLC ..................
1
14,100
170.0
0.0
423820
125 emp .....
Corporation ......
1
16,190
170.0
0.0
238110
$16.5 mn ....
LLC ..................
9
51,500
1,530.0
0.0
481111
1500 emp ...
Recreational and Vacation
Camps (except Campgrounds).
Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation.
All Other Amusement and
Recreation Industries.
All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing.
Aircraft Engine and Engine
Parts Manufacturing.
Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transp.
Farm & Garden Machinery &
Equip. Merchant Wholesalers.
Poured Concrete Foundation
and Structure Contractors.
Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation.
CONCRETE WORKS OF COLORADO INC.
KENMORE AIR HARBOR LLC
Total 80 $161,997 $13,600.
Mean $3,600 $302 0.1%
Median $956 $170 0.0%
Notes:
1. The size standard is the maximum size for the NAICS industry considered by the Small Business Administration to be a small entity.
2. AD costs per airplane are 1 work-hour × $85 = $85 + $85 reporting costs for initial inspection, for a total of $170.
3. All percentage figures are rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent. All 0.0% figures represent values below 0.1%, but above 0%.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
5. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping,
and Other Compliance Requirements
The FAA estimates that this AD will
take 1 work-hour per airplane at a labor
rate of $85 per work-hour to incorporate
into the existing maintenance records
the actions specified in Parts 2 and 3 of
Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, plus $85
per airplane to report any Level 2
corrosion found during the initial or
subsequent inspections or any Level 3
corrosion found during the initial or
subsequent inspections, for an estimated
total cost of $170 per airplane.
The estimated cost of this 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,4 while the median cost
impact is 0.0%.
To the extent that small entities
provide more unique services or serve
markets with less competition, they may
also be able to pass on costs in the form
of price increases. However, the FAA
assumed that none of these small
entities would be able to pass these
compliance costs to their customers in
terms of higher prices. This shows no
significant impact on any of the small
entities.
4 These revenue data come from online sources
such as zoominfo.com, opencorporates.com,
buzzfile.com, manta.com, allbiz.com, and
lookupcompanyrevenue.com.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Sep 29, 2023
Jkt 262001
6. Significant Alternatives Considered
As part of the FRFA, the FAA is
required to consider regulatory
alternatives that may be less
burdensome.
The FAA did not find any significant
regulatory alternatives to this AD that
would accomplish the safety objectives
of this AD.
This AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not 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 Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
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
Regulatory Findings
PO 00000
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:
Sfmt 4700
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by:
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive
64–09–03, Amendment 718 (29 FR
5390, April 22, 1964); and
■ b. Adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
■
■
2023–19–06 Viking Air Limited (Type
Certificate Previously Held by
Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland Inc.):
Amendment 39–22556; Docket No.
FAA–2022–0190; Project Identifier
2019–CE–048–AD.
(a) Effective Date
This airworthiness directive (AD) is
effective November 6, 2023.
(b) Affected ADs
This AD replaces AD 64–09–03,
Amendment 718 (29 FR 5390, April 22,
1964).
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to Viking Air Limited
(type certificate previously held by
Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland Inc.)
Model DHC–2 Mk. I, DHC–2 Mk. II, and
DHC–2 Mk. III airplanes, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category.
E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM
02OCR1
67636
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)
Code 2000, Airframe.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI
describes the unsafe condition as corrosionrelated degradation in aging aircraft. The
FAA is issuing this AD to detect and address
corrosion, which could lead to structural
failure with consequent loss of control of the
airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(g) Required Actions
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
(1) Within 90 days after the effective date
of this AD, incorporate into the existing
maintenance records required by 14 CFR
91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2), as applicable
for your airplane, the actions and associated
thresholds and intervals, including life
limits, specified in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking
DHC–2 Beaver Supplemental Inspection and
Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1–2–5,
Revision 1, dated January 10, 2019 (Viking
PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1). Do each initial task
within 6 months after the effective date of
this AD or at the threshold for each
applicable task specified in Part 3 of Viking
Product Support Manual PSM 1–2–5,
Revision 1, whichever occurs later. Where
Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, specifies
contacting Viking for instructions on forward
and rear fin attachment bolt replacement,
inspection, and installation, and for a
disposition regarding attachment bolts, this
AD requires contacting the Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA; or
Transport Canada; or Viking’s Transport
Canada Design Approval Organization
(DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval
must include the DAO-authorized signature.
Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1): Viking DHC–2
Beaver Service Bulletin V2/0011, Revision
NC, dated November 28, 2019, contains
additional information related to this AD.
(2) After the action required by paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD has been done, no
alternative actions and associated thresholds
and intervals, including life limits, are
allowed unless they are approved as
specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(h) Reporting
(1) For inspections done after the effective
date of this AD, report to Viking any Level
2 or Level 3 corrosion, as specified in Viking
PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, at the times specified
in and in accordance with part 3, paragraph
5, of Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1.
(2) For inspections done before the
effective date of this AD, within 30 days after
the effective date of this AD, report to Viking
any Level 2 or Level 3 corrosion, as specified
in Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, in
accordance with part 3, paragraph 5, of
Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:36 Sep 29, 2023
Jkt 262001
(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 ATTN: Program Manager,
Continuing Operational Safety, at the address
identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD or
email to: 9-AVS-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 the MCAI from Transport
Canada, AD CF–2019–25, dated July 5, 2019,
for related information. This Transport
Canada AD may be found in the AD docket
at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA–
2022–0190.
(2) For more information about this AD,
contact James Delisio, Continued Operational
Safety Program Manager, FAA, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
phone: (516) 228–7321; email: 9-avs-nyacocos@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–2 Beaver Supplemental
Inspection and Corrosion Control Manual,
PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, dated January 10,
2019.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Viking Air Limited
Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way,
Sidney, British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5;
phone: (800) 663–8444; fax: (250) 656–0673;
email: technical.support@vikingair.com;
website: vikingair.com/support/servicebulletins.
(4) You may view this service information
at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA,
call (817) 222–5110.
(5) You may view this service information
that is incorporated by reference at the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 September 15, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–21631 Filed 9–29–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2022–0674; Project
Identifier AD–2021–00373–T; Amendment
39–22559; AD 2023–19–09]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The FAA is superseding
Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020–24–
04, which applied to all The Boeing
Company Model 787–8, 787–9, and
787–10 airplanes. AD 2020–24–04
required revising the existing airplane
flight manual (AFM) to incorporate
procedures for an approach with a
localizer-based navigation aid,
monitoring localizer raw data, calling
out any significant deviations, and
performing an immediate go around
under certain conditions. This AD was
prompted by the development of a
modification to address the previously
identified unsafe condition, and the
identification of a separate unsafe
condition where misleading vertical
flight director (FD) guidance can be
presented to the flightcrew under
certain conditions. This AD continues to
require the actions specified in AD
2020–24–04 and requires installing
applicable software updates to the flight
control module (FCM). Using updated
software terminates the retained AFM
requirement in this AD. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.
DATES: This AD is effective November 6,
2023.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of certain publications listed in this AD
as of November 6, 2023.
ADDRESSES:
AD Docket: You may examine the AD
docket at regulations.gov under Docket
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM
02OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67629-67636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21631]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2022-0190; Project Identifier 2019-CE-048-AD; Amendment
39-22556; AD 2023-19-06]
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 64-09-03,
which applied to all de Havilland (type certificate now held by Viking
Air Limited (Viking)) Model DHC-2 ``Beaver'' airplanes. AD 64-09-03
required inspecting the aileron mass balance weight arms for cracks and
corrosion and replacing any damaged part. Since the FAA issued AD 64-
09-03, Transport Canada superseded its mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) to correct an unsafe condition on
these products. This AD requires incorporating into the existing
maintenance records for your airplane the actions and associated
thresholds and intervals, including life limits, specified in a
supplemental inspection and corrosion control manual for Model DHC-2
airplanes. This AD also requires completing all of the initial tasks
identified in this manual and reporting certain corrosion findings to
Viking. The actions in this supplemental inspection and corrosion
control manual include the inspection of the aileron balance weight
arms required by AD 64-09-03. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.
DATES: This AD is effective November 6, 2023.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 6,
2023.
ADDRESSES:
AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-0190; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the MCAI, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room
[[Page 67630]]
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Material Incorporated by Reference:
For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 de Havilland Way,
Sidney, British Columbia, Canada V8L 5V5; phone: (800) 663-8444; fax:
(250) 656-0673; email: [email protected]; website:
vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins.
You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Delisio, Continued Operational
Safety Program Manager, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; phone: (516) 228-7321; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to supersede
AD 64-09-03, Amendment 718 (29 FR 5390, April 22, 1964) (AD 64-09-03).
AD 64-09-03 applied to all de Havilland (type certificate now held by
Viking Air Limited) Model DHC-2 ``Beaver'' airplanes. AD 64-09-03
required repetitively inspecting the aileron mass balance weight arms
for cracks and corrosion and replacing any damaged part. AD 64-09-03
resulted from cracks and corrosion found on aileron mass balance weight
arm part numbers (P/Ns) C2WA151, C2WA152, C2WA127, and C2WA128. The FAA
issued AD 64-09-03 to address corrosion-related degradation of the
aileron mass balance weight arms which, if not addressed, could lead to
structural failure with consequent loss of control of the airplane.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2022 (87
FR 7065); corrected February 18, 2022 (87 FR 9274). The NPRM was
prompted by AD CF-2019-25, dated July 19, 2019 (referred to after this
as the MCAI), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation
authority for Canada. The MCAI states that it supersedes prior
Transport Canada ADs related to a supplementary inspection and
corrosion control program for aging airplanes, which identifies
specific locations of an airplane that must be inspected to ensure
corrosion-related degradation does not result in an unsafe condition.
The MCAI continues to require the tasks included in the initial issue
of Viking, DHC-2 Beaver Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion Control
Manual, PSM 1-2-5, dated June 21, 2017, and requires additional
inspections for components of airframe systems other than flight
controls, which are included in Viking DHC-2 Beaver Supplemental
Inspection and Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, dated
January 10, 2019 (Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1). Corrosion-related
degradation, if not addressed, could lead to structural failure with
consequent loss of control of the airplane.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-0190.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require establishing a corrosion
prevention and control program approved by the FAA. In the NPRM, the
FAA also proposed to require completing all of the initial tasks
identified in the program and reporting corrosion findings to Viking.
The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM)
to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 64-09-03. The SNPRM published
in the Federal Register on April 25, 2023 (88 FR 24927). The SNPRM was
prompted by the FAA's decision to revise the proposed actions specified
in the NPRM and to reopen 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. In the
SNPRM, the FAA proposed to require incorporating into the existing
maintenance records for your airplane the actions and associated
thresholds and intervals, including life limits, specified in Parts 2
and 3 of Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, completing all the initial tasks
identified in Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, and reporting to Viking any
Level 2 or Level 3 corrosion findings. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.
Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive
Comments
The FAA received comments from three individuals. The following
presents the comments received on the SNPRM and the FAA's response to
each comment.
Request To Withdraw NPRM and SNPRM
One individual commenter requested that the FAA reconsider issuing
the proposed AD and a second individual commenter requested that the
FAA withdraw the proposed rulemaking. The first commenter noted that
during an annual inspection, a licensed Airframe and Powerplant (A&P)
mechanic can determine if an airplane has been properly maintained and
if corrosion is present. This commenter indicated that, by issuing the
proposed AD, the FAA would force many operators and pilots to give up
their airplanes due to exorbitant costs. This commenter stated that
because one or two airplanes were found with extensive corrosion, all
Model DHC-2 airplanes should not be placed in the same category and
that ``the Beaver'' is one of the finest built airplanes and should be
respected as such.
The second individual commenter stated that the FAA must stop broad
brushing all airplanes of a certain build as the same. The commenter
noted that a Model DHC-2 ``Beaver'' built in 1948 is not the same as
one built in 1967 and that the lifetime use of service and
environmental conditions determine an airplane's risk factors. The
commenter explained that many Beavers have thousands of pages of flight
records spanning over 70 years that allow owners and maintainers to
subjectively evaluate an airplane's condition and operating
environments; therefore, based on the points above, the FAA should
immediately withdraw the proposed rulemaking because it lacks merit.
The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding the impact
this final rule will have on operators and pilots. As noted by the
first commenter, Model DHC-2 airplanes are currently required to
perform annual and 100-hour inspections, including inspections for
corrosion, that are required by the Federal Aviation Regulations. The
FAA does not agree that these current regulations require the same
inspections as those proposed in the SNPRM. The inspections proposed in
the SNPRM are focused on certain areas of the airplane and are more
detailed than those covered in the required annual or 100-hour
inspections. The inspections required by this AD are part of a
supplemental inspection and corrosion prevention program that is
included in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1. These
inspection types and intervals address locations or parts that are not
currently required to be inspected as part of annual or 100-hour
inspections in existing regulations. These new inspections and
intervals are needed to detect and address corrosion, which could lead
to structural failure with consequent loss of control of the airplane.
[[Page 67631]]
The FAA also acknowledges the first commenter's concern regarding
the ``exorbitant cost'' of complying with the requirements of this AD
that could result in operators and pilots having to give up their
airplanes. 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 final rule includes undetected corrosion, which could
lead to structural failure and consequent loss of control of the
airplane. Inspections and repairs are therefore necessary to detect and
correct such corrosion before it leads to structural failure.
In response to both commenters' statements that all Model DHC-2
airplanes should not be placed in the same category, the FAA has
determined that an unsafe condition exists or is likely to exist or
develop in other products of the same type design. In this case, the
FAA independently reviewed the MCAI and related service information and
determined an unsafe condition exists and an AD is needed to address
that unsafe condition. Further, it is within the FAA's authority and
responsibility to issue ADs to require actions to address unsafe
conditions that are not otherwise being addressed (or are not addressed
adequately) by routine maintenance procedures.
The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.
Request for Clarification Regarding Conflicting AD Requirements for the
Affected Models
One individual commenter requested clarification regarding what
operators should do if there are conflicts between the requirements
specified in the SNPRM and the requirements of existing ADs for the
affected airplanes. The commenter noted that AD 2008-11-11, Amendment
39-15533 (73 FR 34611, June 18, 2008) (AD 2008-11-11) specifies a
fluorescent penetrant inspection for cracks in the front spar center
section web of the tailplane, while task C55-10-02 in Viking PSM 1-2-5,
Revision 1, allows using a fluorescent penetrant or an eddy current
inspection, which seems contradictory.
The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern. The FAA has reviewed
all potentially related ADs against the proposed requirements in the
SNPRM and determined that other than AD 64-09-03, no other ADs need to
be superseded or rescinded. Any other ADs involving inspections for
corrosion on the affected airplanes require either inspections for
different parts or locations on an airplane or the inspections are not
as in-depth or repetitive; therefore, they do not overlap with the
inspections required by this AD. This includes the requirements of AD
2008-11-11, which requires inspecting a different airplane part than
the part specified in task C55-10-02 of Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1.
The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.
Request To Revise Requirements Based on Airplane Usage Conditions
One individual commenter requested that the SNPRM be revised to
provide different requirements based on how an airplane is used. The
commenter suggested that instead of using a broad approach and
including all Model DHC-2 airplanes, the FAA should use a logical
evaluation process and consider the following parameters to determine
if an airplane's airworthiness might be compromised due to corrosion:
operating environment (exposure to saltwater); commercial or private
use; stress on the airframe due to repetitive flights with heavy loads;
total flight hours on the airframe; airplane history (has it been
partially or completely rebuilt); and maintenance history.
The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request to change the SNPRM
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 an airplane's
entire flight or maintenance history. Without this detailed knowledge
of each airplane, it would be impossible for the FAA to develop a
special set of inspections based on airplane usage conditions. However,
operators may submit a proposal for revised requirements by requesting
an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) using the procedures
specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.
Request To Revise Costs of Compliance
One individual commenter requested that the FAA revise the labor
rate in the Costs of Compliance section of the SNPRM. The commenter
noted that the FAA's estimate of $85 per hour is not accurate and that
the current labor rate for an experienced DHC-2/3 airplane mechanic is
greater than $110 per hour, depending on where in the United States the
work is being performed. The commenter also mentioned that public
comments on the NPRM that is related to the SNPRM stated that DHC-2
mechanic rates are $110 to $150 per hour, depending on the geographic
regions where the work is being performed. The commenter added that the
proposed costs do not consider the current shortage of qualified
mechanics able to do the inspections.
The FAA agrees that the labor rate of $85 per work-hour is dated
but disagrees with the commenter's estimate of $110 to $150 per hour.
The FAA notes that the current wage rate for aviation mechanics as
provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, found at www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes493011.htm, after accounting for fringe benefits that are
valued at roughly 50% of the nominal wage, is lower than the estimated
fully burdened labor rate (a labor rate with fringe benefits included)
of $85 per work-hour; therefore, the FAA is unable to justify
increasing the labor rate from $85 per work-hour. The FAA continues to
use the higher $85 per work-hour figure in order to provide a
conservative estimate of the costs.
Regarding the commenter's statement that the wage rate for DHC-2
mechanics varies geographically, the commenter did not provide any
documentation or references to support this statement. Furthermore,
unless the distribution of DHC-2 airplanes also varies along the same
geography, using an average rate captures the average effect, including
any higher wages; therefore, the FAA has not added a geographical
adjustment into its assessment.
The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concerns regarding labor
shortages, although this does not affect the cost of this final rule.
The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.
Conclusion
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 referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data,
considered the comments received, and determined that air safety
requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for
minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the SNPRM.
[[Page 67632]]
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 AD, however, requires establishing and
incorporating new inspections into the existing maintenance records
required by 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2) for your airplane. The
FAA does not intend this as a substantive change. Requiring
incorporation of the new ALS requirements into the existing maintenance
records, rather than requiring individual repetitive inspections and
replacements, allows operators to record AD compliance once after
updating the existing maintenance records, rather than recording
compliance after every inspection and part replacement.
Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51
The FAA reviewed Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, which specifies
procedures for inspecting locations of the airplane that are
particularly susceptible to corrosion-related degradation and includes
repetitive inspection intervals, defines the different levels of
corrosion, and provides corrective action if corrosion is found.
This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.
Other Related Service Information
The FAA reviewed Viking DHC-2 Beaver Service Bulletin V2/0011,
Revision NC, dated November 28, 2019. This service information provides
a list of new inspection tasks that have been added to the DHC-2
supplementary inspection and corrosion control program, Viking PSM 1-2-
5, Revision 1.
Impact on Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
In light of the heavy reliance on aviation for intrastate
transportation in Alaska, the FAA has fully considered the effects of
this final rule (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-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 affects 409 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA also estimates that it will take about 1 work-hour
per airplane at a labor rate of $85 per work-hour to revise the
existing maintenance records.
Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators to be $34,765 or $85 per airplane.
The FAA estimates it will take about 1 work-hour to report any
Level 2 corrosion found during the initial or subsequent inspections or
any Level 3 corrosion found during the initial or subsequent
inspections, for an estimated cost of $85 per airplane.
Paperwork Reduction Act
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to take
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat.
1164 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (RFA) establishes as a principle of regulatory
issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives
of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and
informational requirements to the scale of the businesses,
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.
To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for
their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious
consideration. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including
small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
The FAA published an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
for this rule to aid the public in commenting on the potential impacts
to small entities. The FAA considered the public comments in developing
the final rule and this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). A
FRFA must contain the following:
(1) A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;
(2) A statement of the significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of the assessment of the
agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the
proposed rule as a result of such comments;
(3) The response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in
response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change
made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the
comments;
(4) A description of and an estimate of the number of small
entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such
estimate is available;
[[Page 67633]]
(5) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record; and
(6) A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in the final rule and why each of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the
impact on small entities was rejected.
1. Need for and Objectives of the Rule
The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 64-09-03, which applied to all de
Havilland (type certificate now held by Viking) Model DHC-2 ``Beaver''
airplanes, because after the FAA issued AD 64-09-03, Transport Canada
superseded its MCAI to identify specific locations of an airplane that
must be inspected to ensure corrosion-related degradation does not
result in an unsafe condition. This final rule requires incorporating
into the existing maintenance records for your airplane the actions and
associated thresholds and intervals, including life limits, specified
in a supplemental inspection and corrosion control manual for Model
DHC-2 airplanes. This final rule also requires completing all the
initial tasks identified in this manual and reporting certain corrosion
findings to Viking. The actions in this supplemental inspection and
corrosion control manual include the inspection of the aileron balance
weight arms required by AD 64-09-03.
2. Significant Issues Raised in Public Comments
The FAA received comments related to costs from three individual
commenters. The following presents the significant issues in the
comments received on the SNPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Request To Revise Requirements Based on Airplane Usage Conditions
Two commenters requested that the SNPRM be revised to have
different requirements based on how the airplane is used, including but
not limited to corrosion level, operating environment (e.g., near salt
water), commercial or private use, and airplane history.
The FAA disagrees with the commenters' requests to change the SNPRM
based on 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 an airplane's entire flight or
maintenance history. 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 AD. The FAA has not
changed this AD regarding this issue.
Request To Revise Costs of Compliance: Labor Rate
One commenter requested that the FAA revise the labor rate in the
Costs of Compliance section of the SNPRM. The commenter noted that
current labor rates are anywhere from $110 to $150 per hour and added
that the proposed costs do not consider the current shortage of
qualified mechanics able to do the inspections.
The FAA agrees that the labor rate of $85 per work-hour provided in
the SNPRM is dated but disagrees with the provided estimate of $110 to
$150 per hour provided by the commenter. The FAA notes that the current
wage rate for aviation mechanics as provided by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, found at www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes493011.htm, after
accounting for fringe benefits that are valued at roughly 50% of the
nominal wage, is lower than the estimated fully burdened labor rate (a
labor rate with fringe benefits included) of $85 per work-hour.
Therefore, the FAA is unable to justify increasing the labor rate from
$85 per work-hour. The FAA continues to use the higher $85 per work-
hour figure in order to provide a conservative estimate of the costs.
The commenter also indicated that the wage rate for DHC-2 mechanics
varies geographically but did not provide any documentation or
references to support this statement. Furthermore, unless the
distribution of DHC-2 airplanes also varies along the same geography,
using an average rate captures the average effect, including any higher
wages; therefore, the FAA has not added a geographical adjustment into
its assessment.
3. Response to SBA Comments
The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA did not file any comments
in response to the SNPRM. Thus, the FAA did not make any changes to
this final rule.
4. Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply
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 SBA to define ``small business'' by issuing
regulations.
SBA (2022) has established size standards for various types of
economic activities, or industries, under the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS).\1\ These size standards generally define
small businesses based on the number of employees or annual receipts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Small Business Administration (SBA). 2022. Table of Size
Standards. Effective July 14, 2022. https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA Civil Aircraft Registry shows 409 Model DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2
Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes that will be affected by this AD.
These 409 airplanes are registered to 235 private businesses, 76
individuals, and 3 government agencies. The 76 individuals and 3
government agencies are excluded from this analysis as the RFA does not
apply to individuals and the 3 government agencies are not small
entities as defined by the RFA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Two airplanes are registered to the U.S. Department of the
Interior. Five airplanes are registered to the United States Forest
Service, within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Two airplanes
are registered to the State of Alaska to the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game. These government agencies and are not small entities
under the RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three hundred nineteen (319) airplanes are owned and operated by
235 private entities. A sample of 50 private businesses was randomly
selected for the analysis.\3\ Of the 50 sampled entities, 45 were found
to be small. The results of the cost impact analysis for these 45 small
entities are shown in Table 1 and will be discussed in the following
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The sample was selected by shuffling the order of the list
of 409 DHC-2 airplanes in the FAA Registry and going down the
randomized list. If revenue and employee count data were available,
it was included in the sample; otherwise, it was excluded. This
process was repeated until 50 firms, for which revenue and employee
data were available, had been added to the sample. The shuffling was
accomplished by giving each entry in the registry an index value
between 0 and 1 using Excel's RAND function. The entries were then
sorted by that index value to randomize their order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen, the impacts range from nearly 0%, to a maximum of
0.5%. The average impact is 0.1%, and the median impact rounds to 0.0%.
As
[[Page 67634]]
such, the FAA has determined that this rule will not significantly
impact a substantial number of small entities.
Table 1--Cost Impact on Small Entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost/
Operator FAA Registry type DHC-2 A/C Revenues Cost revenue NAICS Size standard NAICS industry
($1,000) (%) code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALASKAS FISHING UNLIMITED INC.... Non-Citizen Corp.... 1 79 $170.0 0.2 721214 $8 mn............ Recreational and
Vacation Camps
(except
Campgrounds).
DOUGLAS AVIATION LTD............. Corporation......... 2 90 340.0 0.4 541990 $17 mn........... All Other
Professional,
Scientific and
Technical
Services.
NORTHSTAR HOLDINGS LLC........... LLC................. 3 110 510.0 0.5 551112 $40 mn........... Offices of Other
Holding Companies.
RHK OF KANSAS.................... Corporation......... 1 110 170.0 0.2 541110 $13.5 mn......... Offices of Lawyers.
SUMMIT LEASING LLC............... LLC................. 1 110 170.0 0.2 532490 $35 mn........... Other Comm'l & Ind.
Machinery and
Equip. Rental &
Leasing.
JESPERSEN AIRCRAFT SERVICES INC.. Corporation......... 3 113 510.0 0.4 481219 $22 mn........... Other Nonscheduled
Air
Transportation.
KATMAI AIR LLC................... LLC................. 1 117 170.0 0.1 532411 $40 mn........... Comm'l Air, Rail, &
Water Transp.
Equip. Rental and
Leasing.
MUSTANG HIGH FLIGHT LLC.......... LLC................. 1 127 170.0 0.1 334511 1250 emp......... Search, Detect.,
Nav., Guid.,
Aero., & Naut.
Systems & Inst.
Mfg.
FLIGHT MANAGEMENT LLC............ LLC................. 2 161 340.0 0.2 561110 $11 mn........... Office
Administrative
Services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWHALEN LODGE INC............... Corporation......... 3 165 510.0 0.3 721199 $8 mn............ All Other Traveler
Accommodation.
4R AVIATION LLC.................. LLC................. 1 177 170.0 0.1 336411 1500 emp......... Aircraft
Manufacturing.
RAINBOW KING LODGE INC........... Corporation......... 2 209 340.0 0.2 721199 $8 mn............ All Other Traveler
Accommodation.
DOYON AIRCRAFT LEASING LLC....... LLC................. 1 250 170.0 0.1 532411 $40 mn........... Comm'l Air, Rail, &
Water Transp.
Equip. Rental and
Leasing.
KENMORE CREW LEASING INC TRUSTEE. Corporation......... 1 278 170.0 0.1 532490 $35 mn........... Other Comm'l & Ind.
Machinery and
Equip. Rental &
Leasing.
COMANCHE FIGHTERS LLC............ LLC................. 1 301 170.0 0.1 813930 $14.5 mn......... Labor Unions and
Similar Labor
Organizations.
BAY AIR INC...................... Corporation......... 1 307 170.0 0.1 481111 1500 emp......... Scheduled Passenger
Air
Transportation.
COYOTE AIR LLC................... LLC................. 2 310 340.0 0.1 481211 1500 emp......... Nonscheduled
Chartered
Passenger Air
Transp.
KINGFISHER AIR INC............... Corporation......... 1 366 170.0 0.0 481219 $22 mn........... Other Nonscheduled
Air
Transportation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSOCIATED LEASING LLC........... LLC................. 1 500 170.0 0.0 532490 $35 mn........... Other Comm'l & Ind.
Machinery and
Equip. Rental &
Leasing.
TIKCHIK NARROWS LODGE INC........ Corporation......... 3 720 510.0 0.1 721214 $8 mn............ Recreational and
Vacation Camps
(except
Campgrounds).
NORTHWEST SEAPLANES INC.......... Corporation......... 3 750 510.0 0.1 481111 1500 emp......... Scheduled Passenger
Air
Transportation.
SNOW MOUNTAIN ENTERPRISES LLC.... LLC................. 1 750 170.0 0.0 532000 $8 mn............ Rental and Leasing
Services, N.F.S.
ISLAND WINGS AIR SERVICE LLC..... LLC................. 2 956 340.0 0.0 481211 1500 emp......... Nonscheduled
Chartered
Passenger Air
Transp.
TVPX AIRCRAFT SOLUTIONS INC Corporation......... 3 1,157 510.0 0.0 336310 1000 emp......... Motor Vehicle
TRUSTEE. Gasoline Engine
and Engine Parts
Mfg.
SHELDON AIR SERVICE LLC.......... LLC................. 1 1,400 170.0 0.0 481219 $22 mn........... Other Nonscheduled
Air
Transportation.
TALKEETNA AIR TAXI INC........... Corporation......... 1 1,635 170.0 0.0 481219 $22 mn........... Other Nonscheduled
Air
Transportation.
NO SEE UM LODGE INC.............. Corporation......... 3 2,036 510.0 0.0 721214 $8 mn............ Recreational and
Vacation Camps
(except
Campgrounds).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARD AIR INC..................... Corporation......... 4 2,191 680.0 0.0 481219 $22 mn........... Other Nonscheduled
Air
Transportation.
HISTORIC FLIGHT FOUNDATION....... Corporation......... 1 2,500 340.0 0.0 712110 $30 mn........... Museums.
LAKE HAVASU SEAPLANES LLC........ LLC................. 1 2,500 170.0 0.0 611000 $8 mn............ Educational
Services, N.F.S.
RDJ BROTHERS TRUCKING INC........ Corporation......... 1 2,500 170.0 0.0 236000 $39.5 mn......... Construction of
buildings, N.F.S.
SEAWIND AVIATION INC............. Corporation......... 2 2,500 170.0 0.0 481211 1500 emp......... Nonscheduled
Chartered
Passenger Air
Transp.
TIKCHIK AIRVENTURES LLC.......... LLC................. 1 2,500 170.0 0.0 481211 1500 emp......... Nonscheduled
Chartered
Passenger Air
Transp.
WOLF TRAIL LODGE INC............. Corporation......... 1 2,500 170.0 0.0 721000 $8 mn............ Accommodation,
N.F.S.
ANDREW AIRWAYS INC............... Corporation......... 3 2,576 510.0 0.0 485999 $16.5 mn......... All Other Transit
and Ground
Passenger
Transportation.
[[Page 67635]]
ALASKAS ENCHANTED LAKE LODGE INC. Corporation......... 2 2,729 340.0 0.0 721310 $12.5 mn......... Rooming & Boarding
Houses,
Dormitories, and
Workers' Camps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAINBOW RIVER LODGE LLC.......... LLC................. 2 4,000 340.0 0.0 721214 $8 mn............ Recreational and
Vacation Camps
(except
Campgrounds).
K BAY AIR LLC.................... LLC................. 1 4,427 170.0 0.0 481219 $22 mn........... Other Nonscheduled
Air
Transportation.
RAPIDS CAMP LODGE INC............ Corporation......... 1 7,000 170.0 0.0 713990 $8 mn............ All Other Amusement
and Recreation
Industries.
PROGRESSIVE PLASTICS INC......... Corporation......... 1 7,500 170.0 0.0 326199 750 emp.......... All Other Plastics
Product
Manufacturing.
BROWN HELICOPTER INC............. Corporation......... 1 9,000 170.0 0.0 336412 1500 emp......... Aircraft Engine and
Engine Parts
Manufacturing.
PERRYCOOK FLIGHT SERVICES LLC.... LLC................. 1 12,500 170.0 0.0 481211 1500 emp......... Nonscheduled
Chartered
Passenger Air
Transp.
KOMRO INTERNATIONAL LLC.......... LLC................. 1 14,100 170.0 0.0 423820 125 emp.......... Farm & Garden
Machinery & Equip.
Merchant
Wholesalers.
CONCRETE WORKS OF COLORADO INC... Corporation......... 1 16,190 170.0 0.0 238110 $16.5 mn......... Poured Concrete
Foundation and
Structure
Contractors.
KENMORE AIR HARBOR LLC........... LLC................. 9 51,500 1,530.0 0.0 481111 1500 emp......... Scheduled Passenger
Air
Transportation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 80 $161,997 $13,600.
Mean $3,600 $302 0.1%
Median $956 $170 0.0%
Notes:
1. The size standard is the maximum size for the NAICS industry considered by the Small Business Administration to be a small entity.
2. AD costs per airplane are 1 work-hour x $85 = $85 + $85 reporting costs for initial inspection, for a total of $170.
3. All percentage figures are rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent. All 0.0% figures represent values below 0.1%, but above 0%.
5. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
The FAA estimates that this AD will take 1 work-hour per airplane
at a labor rate of $85 per work-hour to incorporate into the existing
maintenance records the actions specified in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking
PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, plus $85 per airplane to report any Level 2
corrosion found during the initial or subsequent inspections or any
Level 3 corrosion found during the initial or subsequent inspections,
for an estimated total cost of $170 per airplane.
The estimated cost of this 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,\4\ while the median cost impact is 0.0%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These revenue data come from online sources such as
zoominfo.com, opencorporates.com, buzzfile.com, manta.com,
allbiz.com, and lookupcompanyrevenue.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent that small entities provide more unique services or
serve markets with less competition, they may also be able to pass on
costs in the form of price increases. However, the FAA assumed that
none of these small entities would be able to pass these compliance
costs to their customers in terms of higher prices. This shows no
significant impact on any of the small entities.
6. Significant Alternatives Considered
As part of the FRFA, the FAA is required to consider regulatory
alternatives that may be less burdensome.
The FAA did not find any significant regulatory alternatives to
this AD that would accomplish the safety objectives of this AD.
Regulatory Findings
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
(2) Will not 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 Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
0
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 64-09-03, Amendment 718 (29 FR
5390, April 22, 1964); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:
2023-19-06 Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by
Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland Inc.): Amendment 39-22556; Docket
No. FAA-2022-0190; Project Identifier 2019-CE-048-AD.
(a) Effective Date
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective November 6, 2023.
(b) Affected ADs
This AD replaces AD 64-09-03, Amendment 718 (29 FR 5390, April
22, 1964).
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to Viking Air Limited (type certificate
previously held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland Inc.) Model DHC-
2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes, all serial
numbers, certificated in any category.
[[Page 67636]]
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2000, Airframe.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as corrosion-
related degradation in aging aircraft. The FAA is issuing this AD to
detect and address corrosion, which could lead to structural failure
with consequent loss of control of the airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
(g) Required Actions
(1) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD,
incorporate into the existing maintenance records required by 14 CFR
91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2), as applicable for your airplane, the
actions and associated thresholds and intervals, including life
limits, specified in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking DHC-2 Beaver
Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1-2-5,
Revision 1, dated January 10, 2019 (Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1).
Do each initial task within 6 months after the effective date of
this AD or at the threshold for each applicable task specified in
Part 3 of Viking Product Support Manual PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1,
whichever occurs later. Where Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1,
specifies contacting Viking for instructions on forward and rear fin
attachment bolt replacement, inspection, and installation, and for a
disposition regarding attachment bolts, this AD requires contacting
the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport
Canada; or Viking's Transport Canada Design Approval Organization
(DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-
authorized signature.
Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1): Viking DHC-2 Beaver Service Bulletin
V2/0011, Revision NC, dated November 28, 2019, contains additional
information related to this AD.
(2) After the action required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD has
been done, no alternative actions and associated thresholds and
intervals, including life limits, are allowed unless they are
approved as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(h) Reporting
(1) For inspections done after the effective date of this AD,
report to Viking any Level 2 or Level 3 corrosion, as specified in
Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, at the times specified in and in
accordance with part 3, paragraph 5, of Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision
1.
(2) For inspections done before the effective date of this AD,
within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, report to Viking
any Level 2 or Level 3 corrosion, as specified in Viking PSM 1-2-5,
Revision 1, in accordance with part 3, paragraph 5, of Viking PSM 1-
2-5, Revision 1.
(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, 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 ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, at the
address identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD or email to: [email protected]. If mailing information, also submit
information by email.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved specifically for this AD by the Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA.
(j) Additional Information
(1) Refer to the MCAI from Transport Canada, AD CF-2019-25,
dated July 5, 2019, for related information. This Transport Canada
AD may be found in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No.
FAA-2022-0190.
(2) For more information about this AD, contact James Delisio,
Continued Operational Safety Program Manager, FAA, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (516) 228-7321; email:
[email protected].
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (k)(3) and (4) of this AD.
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Viking DHC-2 Beaver Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion
Control Manual, PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, dated January 10, 2019.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way, Sidney,
British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone: (800) 663-8444; fax: (250)
656-0673; email: [email protected]; website:
vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins.
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
Issued on September 15, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-21631 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P