Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-13617

Proposed Rule2023-13617

Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Airplanes

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

June 28, 2023

Issuing agencies

Transportation DepartmentFederal Aviation Administration

Abstract

The FAA is revising a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would have applied to all Viking Air Limited (Viking) (type certificate previously held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Model DHC-3 airplanes. This action revises the NPRM by changing the required action specified in the proposed airworthiness directive (AD). Additionally, the FAA is publishing an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to aid the public in commenting on the potential impacts to small entities from this proposal. The FAA is reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on the revised proposed action and whether the revised proposed action would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products and the agency is requesting comments on this SNPRM.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 123 (Wednesday, June 28, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 28, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41863-41870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13617]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1076; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01201-A]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that would have applied to all Viking Air Limited (Viking) (type
certificate previously held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.)
Model DHC-3 airplanes. This action revises the NPRM by changing the
required action specified in the proposed airworthiness directive (AD).
Additionally, the FAA is publishing an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) to aid the public in commenting on the potential
impacts to small entities from this proposal. The FAA is reopening the
comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on the revised
proposed action and whether the revised proposed action would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products and the agency is requesting comments on this SNPRM.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by August 14, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> Fax: (202) 493-2251.
<bullet> Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
<bullet> Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a> under
Docket No. FAA-2020-1076; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except

[[Page 41864]]

Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, this SNPRM, the
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.
Material Incorporated by Reference:
<bullet> For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact
Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way, Sidney,
British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone: (800) 663-8444; fax: (250)
656-0673; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c8bcadaba0a6a1aba9a4e6bbbdb8b8a7babc88bea1a3a1a6afa9a1bae6aba7a5">[email&#160;protected]</a>; website:
<a href="http://vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins">vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins</a>.
<bullet> You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deep Gaurav, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817)
228-3731; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#84bda9e5f2f7a9eafde5e7eba9e7ebf7c4e2e5e5aae3ebf2">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-1076; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-01201-A'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may again
revise this proposal because of those comments.
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
<a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this SNPRM.

Confidential Business Information

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this SNPRM contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this SNPRM, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission
containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this SNPRM. Submissions containing CBI should
be sent to Deep Gaurav, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA
receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that
would apply to all Viking Model DHC-3 airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on February 8, 2022 (87 FR 7059). The NPRM was
prompted by AD CF-2018-04, dated January 19, 2018, issued by Transport
Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (referred to after
this as ``the MCAI''). The MCAI states that Viking developed a
supplementary inspection and corrosion control program for aging
airplanes, which identifies specific locations of an airplane that must
be inspected to ensure corrosion-related degradation does not result in
an unsafe condition.
The MCAI requires doing all inspections specified in Part 2 of
Viking DHC-3 Otter Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion Control
Manual, PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, dated December 21, 2017 (Viking PSM 1-
3-5, Revision IR), doing applicable corrective actions using Part 3 of
Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, and reporting to Viking Level 2 and
Level 3 corrosion as specified in Part 3 of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision
IR.
Corrosion, wear, and fatigue-related degradation, if not addressed,
could lead to structural failure with consequent loss of control of the
airplane.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a> under
Docket No. FAA-2020-1076.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require establishing a corrosion
prevention and control program to identify and correct corrosion and
cracking. In the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to require completing all
of the initial tasks identified in the program and reporting corrosion
findings to Viking.

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

Since the FAA issued the NPRM, the FAA revised the proposed actions
specified in the NPRM. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require
establishing a corrosion prevention and control program approved by the
FAA. In this SNPRM the FAA proposes to require incorporating into the
existing maintenance records for your airplane the actions specified in
Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR.
In addition, the FAA is reopening the comment period to allow the
public the chance to comment on whether the proposed AD would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

Comments

The FAA received comments from three commenters. The commenters
were Taquan Air, Talkeetna Air Taxi, and an individual. The following
presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to
each comment.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM: Lack of Data on Corrosion-Related
Accidents

Taquan Air and an individual commenter stated that they were not
aware of any corrosion-related accidents involving the affected
airplanes. The individual commenter noted that ADs are supposed to be
driven by accidents and incidents that result in injury and/or death
and stated that if this is correct, then there is no justification for
the NPRMs that would be applicable to the Beavers [Model DHC-2
airplanes] and Otters [Model DHC-3 airplanes]. The individual commenter
asked how aviation would be made better by issuing the NPRMs that would
be applicable to two dependable and reliable airplanes. The FAA infers
that these commenters are requesting that the FAA withdraw the NPRM.
The FAA does not agree with the commenters' requests to withdraw
the NPRM. According to 14 CFR 39.5, the issuance of an AD is based on
the finding that an unsafe condition exists or is likely to exist or
develop in other products of the same type design. This section of the
Federal Aviation Regulations does not specify that an accident is
necessary for the FAA to determine that there is an unsafe condition.
In this case, the FAA independently reviewed the MCAI and related
service information and determined an unsafe condition exists and an AD
is needed to address that unsafe condition. Further, it is within

[[Page 41865]]

the FAA's authority and responsibility to issue ADs to require actions
to address unsafe conditions that are not otherwise being addressed (or
are not addressed adequately) by routine maintenance procedures. In
addition, based upon detailed airplane tear-down inspections performed
by Viking (the design approval holder), the FAA has determined that the
existing maintenance procedures and inspections will not adequately
detect corrosion. Although this SNPRM is not tied to a specific
corrosion-related accident, the FAA has determined that undetected
corrosion could exist and lead to structural failure. The FAA has a
responsibility to issue ADs to correct identified unsafe conditions in
aircraft, regardless of the location or cause. The FAA has not changed
this SNPRM regarding this issue.

Request To Withdraw NPRM: Impact on Small Entities

Taquan Air and an individual commenter expressed concern regarding
the financial impact of the NPRM on small entities. The individual
commenter asked if the FAA considered the financial burden on
operators. This commenter explained that there are not enough mechanics
and asked how a company with Beavers and Otters could stay in business
trying to create and get two corrosion programs up at the same time and
maintain the flying aircraft. Taquan Air stated that the NPRM was
targeting a specific type of operator and would financially burden just
Beaver and Otter operators.
The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns and infers that the
commenters are requesting that the NPRM be withdrawn due to the
perceived adverse economic impact on small entities. Under 14 CFR 39.1,
issuance of an AD is based on the finding that an unsafe condition
exists or is likely to develop in aircraft of a particular type design.
An aging airplane requires more attention during maintenance procedures
and, at times, more frequent inspections of structural components to
detect damage due to environmental deterioration, accidental damage,
and fatigue. The unsafe condition addressed in this SNPRM includes
undetected corrosion, which could lead to structural failure and
consequent loss of control of the airplane. Inspections and repair are
therefore necessary to detect and correct such corrosion before it
leads to structural failure. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM
regarding this issue.
Regarding the question of the NPRM having a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the FAA has developed
an IRFA for this proposed action and a reason for issuing this SNPRM is
to solicit comments on the IRFA.

Request To Supersede Certain ADs for Viking Model DHC-3 Airplanes

Talkeetna Air Taxi requested that the NPRM be revised to supersede
certain ADs for Viking Model DHC-3 airplanes that include inspections
requirements. The commenter explained that Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision
IR, is a broad and detailed document, and stated that if operators
chose to use Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, to establish a corrosion
control program, then the repetitive inspections required by those ADs
would be redundant and those AD should be superseded.
The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The FAA has
reviewed all potentially related ADs against the proposed requirements
in this SNPRM and determined that no ADs need to be superseded or
rescinded. If an operator identifies an inspection that it considers to
be redundant, the operator can request an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) by using the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of
this SNPRM.

Request To Add Airplanes to Aging Aircraft or Other Existing Rulemaking

Taquan Air and an individual commenter requested that the unsafe
condition be addressed by adding Viking Model DHC-3 airplanes to the
Aging Aircraft rule (14 CFR 135.422), rather than through the NPRM. The
commenters noted that doing so would evenly spread the burden, rather
than having different corrosion control policies for different airplane
models. Taquan Air noted that airplanes operating in Alaska have been
exempted from the Aging Aircraft rule. Both commenters suggested that
14 CFR part 43 appendix D (which specifies the scope and detail of
items to be included in annual and 100-hour inspections) be rewritten
to address corrosion. The individual commenter added that 14 CFR
135.422 should apply to all part 135 operators, with a similar 14 CFR
regulation applicable to part 91 operators.
The FAA disagrees with adding this to the Aging Aircraft rule. The
proposed action would address a known unsafe condition on the structure
of Viking Model DHC-3 airplanes. If the FAA finds that other aircraft
have similar issues to the affected airplanes, the FAA would look at
appropriate rulemaking for those aircraft also. For the Viking Model
DHC-3 airplanes, the FAA has determined that annual and 100-hour
inspections are currently not adequate to address the unsafe condition
identified in this SNPRM. The FAA has a responsibility to address an
unsafe condition that is not addressed by general maintenance by
issuing an AD. Therefore, the proposed actions of this SNPRM are the
appropriate way of addressing the unsafe condition. Adding inspections
for corrosion to 14 CFR part 43 appendix D to address the unsafe
condition identified in this SNPRM is not appropriate because that
corrective action would not be limited to the products affected by this
unsafe condition. 14 CFR part 43 appendix D contains general
inspections that are not specific to individual products. Therefore,
issuing an AD is the appropriate vehicle for addressing this identified
unsafe condition. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM regarding this
issue.

Request To Revise Requirements Based on Airplane Usage Conditions

Taquan Air asked if the operating environment, including the use of
floats, wheels, or skis, would be considered when the FAA reviewed the
corrosion prevention program. The FAA infers that the commenter is
requesting a change to the NPRM based on different airplane operational
usage.
The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request to change the NPRM
based on different airplane operational usage. There is no current
requirement to track the hours spent flying in different conditions or
types of water. Additionally, operators may not know the entire flight
history of an airplane. Without this detailed knowledge of each
airplane, it would be impossible for the FAA to develop a special set
of inspections based on airplane usage conditions. However, operators
may submit a proposal for revised requirements by requesting an AMOC
using the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this SNPRM. The FAA
has not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.

Request To Clarify Process for Creating Corrosion Prevention and
Control Program

Taquan Air and an individual commenter asked for clarity regarding
the process of creating and getting approval for a corrosion prevention
and control program. Taquan Air asked how long it would take to get a
program approved. Taquan Air also asked if the Viking corrosion control
program is an approved method for establishing a corrosion prevention
and control

[[Page 41866]]

program. Taquan Air suggested that the FAA establish areas that need to
be in the program and an outline of expectations, so operators can get
it correct. The individual commenter suggested it is unfair for the FAA
to require operators to develop a program without the proper
qualifications, experience, or training. That same commenter suggested
that the lack of guidance and procedures would leave room for
interpretation, leading to multiple exchanges with the FAA and an ever-
evolving process that could lead to significant delays and could ground
airplanes.
The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding the
creation of a corrosion prevention and control program and has
simplified the proposed actions. This SNPRM would require incorporating
the inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, into
the existing maintenance records. In Note 1 to paragraph (g) of the
NPRM, the use of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, was identified as an
acceptable means of compliance but was not required to be used. That
note has been removed from this SNPRM and the subsequent note that
appeared as Note 2 to paragraph (g) of the NPRM has been has re-
identified as Note 1 to paragraph (g) in this proposed AD.
The FAA also acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding delays
and timeliness of approving a prevention and control program, however,
since this proposed AD would require operators to incorporate the
inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, into the
existing maintenance records, those concerns should be mitigated.

Request To Allow Mechanics to Perform Certain Tasks

An individual commenter requested that ``properly trained
mechanics'' be allowed to perform the non-destructive testing (NDT)
inspections (tasks).
The FAA agrees with the commenter's request. Operators can use an
in-house properly trained individual with qualifications equivalent to
Level II or Level III to do the NDT inspections. FAA Advisory Circular
65-31B, Training, Qualification, and Certification of Nondestructive
Inspection Personnel, dated February 24, 2014, contains FAA-approved
Level II and Level III qualification standards criteria for inspection
personnel doing NDT inspections. Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR,
specifies that personnel certified as Level II or higher, as acceptable
to the operator's cognizant airworthiness authority, can do the NDT
inspections. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

The FAA reviewed Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, which specifies
procedures for inspecting areas of the airplane that are particularly
susceptible to corrosion, wear, and fatigue-related degradation. Viking
PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, also specifies repetitive inspection intervals,
defines the different levels of corrosion, and provides corrective
action if corrosion is found.
This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Other Related Service Information

The FAA also reviewed Viking DHC-3 Otter Service Bulletin V3/0010,
Revision NC, dated March 19, 2020. The service bulletin provides a list
of new inspection tasks that have been added to the DHC-3 maintenance
program in Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR.

FAA's Determination

These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI and service information described above. The FAA is issuing
this SNPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design. At the request of some commenters, the FAA is reopening
the comment period of this SNPRM to allow the public the chance to
comment on the economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This SNPRM also contains the changes discussed previously.

Proposed AD Requirements in This SNPRM

This proposed AD would require within 90 days after the effective
date of the final rule, incorporating into the existing maintenance
records the actions specified in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-3-5,
Revision IR, and doing each initial task within 6 months after the
effective date of the proposed AD or at the threshold for each
applicable task specified in Part 3 of Viking Product Support Manual
PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, whichever occurs later. This proposed AD would
also require reporting corrosion findings to Viking.

ADs Mandating Airworthiness Limitations (ALS)

The FAA has previously mandated airworthiness limitations by
issuing ADs that require revising the ALS of the existing maintenance
manual or instructions for continued airworthiness to incorporate new
or revised inspections. This proposed AD, however, would require
establishing and incorporating new inspections into the existing
maintenance records required by 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2)
for your airplane. The FAA does not intend this as a substantive
change. Requiring incorporation of the new ALS requirements into the
existing maintenance records, rather than requiring individual
repetitive inspections and replacements, allows operators to record AD
compliance once after updating the existing maintenance records, rather
than recording compliance after every inspection and part replacement.

Impact on Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

In light of the heavy reliance on aviation for intrastate
transportation in Alaska, the FAA has fully considered the effects of
this SNPRM (including costs to be borne by affected operators) from the
earliest possible stages of AD development. As previously stated, 14
CFR part 39 requires operators to correct an unsafe condition
identified on an airplane to ensure operation of that airplane in an
airworthy condition. The FAA has determined that the need to correct
corrosion, wear, and fatigue-related degradation in aging aircraft,
which could lead to structural failure with consequent loss of control
of the airplane, outweighs any impact on aviation in Alaska.

Costs of Compliance

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 68 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it
would take about 1 work-hour per airplane at a labor rate of $85 per
work-hour to revise the existing maintenance records.
Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $5,780 or $85 per airplane.
The FAA estimates it would take about 1 work-hour to report any
Level 2 corrosion found during the proposed initial or subsequent
inspections or any Level 3 corrosion found during the proposed initial
or subsequent

[[Page 41867]]

inspections, for an estimated cost of $85 per airplane.

Paperwork Reduction Act

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to take
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat.
1164 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (RFA) establishes as a principle of regulatory
issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of
the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and
informational requirements to the scale of the businesses,
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To
achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for
their actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including
small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the RFA. Based on the comments received following publication of the
NPRM, the FAA has completed an IRFA and requests comments from affected
small entities. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the number
of small entities affected, assess the economic impact of the proposed
regulation on them, and consider less burdensome alternatives and still
meet the agency's statutory objectives.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

The RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996)
and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240, 124 Stat.
2504, Sept. 27, 2010), requires Federal agencies to consider the
effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small
entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term
``small entities'' comprises small businesses and small organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and small governmental jurisdictions with populations of less
than fifty thousand (50,000).
The FAA is publishing this IRFA to aid the public in commenting on
the potential impacts to small entities from this proposal. The FAA
invites interested parties to submit data and information regarding the
potential economic impact that would result from the proposal. The FAA
will consider comments when making a determination or when completing a
Final Regulatory Flexibility Assessment.
Under Sections 603(b) and (c) of the RFA, the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis for a proposed rule must contain the following:
(1) A description of the reasons why the action by the agency is
being considered;
(2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rule;
(3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
(4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
(5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule; and
(6) A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed
rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and
which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on
small entities.

1. Reasons the Action Is Being Considered

The FAA issued an NPRM that proposed to adopt a new AD for Viking
Model DHC-3 airplanes. This proposed AD results from MCAI originated by
an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an
unsafe condition on an aviation product. The NPRM proposed to require
establishing a corrosion prevention and control program to identify and
correct corrosion and cracking. The NPRM also proposed to require
completing all of the initial tasks identified in the program and
reporting corrosion findings to Viking.

2. Objectives and Legal Basis of the Proposed Rule

The objective of the actions proposed in this SNPRM is to meet the
same safety intent as those actions proposed in the NPRM. The FAA
issued the NPRM under the authority described in Title 49, Subtitle
VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, General requirements. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of civil
aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum safety standards
required in the interest of safety. This regulation is within the scope
of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is
likely to exist or develop on Viking Model DHC-3 airplanes.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more

[[Page 41868]]

detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities

The FAA used the definition of small entities in the RFA for this
analysis. The RFA defines small entities as small businesses, small
governmental jurisdictions, or small organizations. In 5 U.S.C. 601(3),
the RFA defines ``small business'' to have the same meaning as ``small
business concern'' under section 3 of the Small Business Act. The Small
Business Act authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to
define ``small business'' by issuing regulations.
SBA (2022) has established size standards for various types of
economic activities, or industries, under the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS).\1\ These size standards generally define
small businesses based on the number of employees or annual receipts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Small Business Administration (SBA). 2022. Table of Size
Standards. Effective July 14, 2022. <a href="https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards">https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA identified 68 Viking Model DHC-3 airplanes that would be
affected by the proposed AD. These 68 airplanes are registered to 32
private firms and 5 individuals. The individuals are excluded from this
analysis as they presumably are not small entities under the RFA.
The 32 private firms own 63 airplanes. Of these firms, the FAA was
able to obtain the data necessary to classify 21 of them.\2\ All but
one firm qualify as small entities under the RFA. Thus, the FAA
estimates that this rule would impact 20 small entities. For these 20
small entities, the results of the of the cost impact analysis are
shown in Table 1, ``Cost Impact on Small Entities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Firm revenue and employee count are drawn from online
sources, including: Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (<a href="http://www.dnb.com">www.dnb.com</a>); Manta
Media, Inc. (<a href="http://www.manta.com">www.manta.com</a>); Buzzfile Media, Inc.
(<a href="http://www.buzzfile.com">www.buzzfile.com</a>); Datanyze, Inc. (<a href="http://www.datanyze.com">www.datanyze.com</a>); Moody's
Analytics (<a href="http://start.cortera.com">start.cortera.com</a>); <a href="http://GeneralLiabilityInsure.com">GeneralLiabilityInsure.com</a>
(generalliabilityinsure.com); Kona Equity (<a href="http://www.konaequity.com">www.konaequity.com</a>); and
ZoomInfo Technologies LLC (<a href="http://www.zoominfo.com">www.zoominfo.com</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements

The FAA estimates that the AD costs per airplane would be 1 work
hour plus $85 in reporting costs for the initial inspection, for a
total of $170. The estimated cost of this proposed AD, per small
entity, is shown in the ``Cost'' column of Table 1 and cost impact is
measured by cost as a percentage of revenues. As the table shows, the
mean cost impact is 0.1% of annual revenues,\3\ with a maximum impact
of 0.46% of annual revenues, and a minimum impact below 0.01%. This
impact did not vary with firm size; the largest cost impact was only
0.5%, which is still not considered significant. Costs under 1% of
revenues for all of the small entities lead the FAA to conclude that
this proposed rule would s not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ These revenue data come from online sources such as
<a href="http://zoominfo.com">zoominfo.com</a>, <a href="http://opencorporates.com">opencorporates.com</a>, <a href="http://buzzfile.com">buzzfile.com</a>, <a href="http://manta.com">manta.com</a>,
<a href="http://allbiz.com">allbiz.com</a>, and <a href="http://lookupcompanyrevenue.com">lookupcompanyrevenue.com</a>.

Table 1--Cost Impact on Small Entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost/
Firm No. Acft Revenue Cost revenue NAICS Size standard NAICS industry
($1,000) ($1,000) (%) code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMIT LEASING LLC....................... 3 $110 $0.2 0.00 532490 $35 mn................... Other Comm'l and Industrial
Mach. and Equip. Rental &
Leasing.
KATMAI AIR LLC........................... 2 117 0.2 0.00 532411 $40 mn................... Comm'l Air, Rail, and Water
Transp. Equip. Rental &
Leasing.
JESPERSEN AIRCRAFT SERVICES INC.......... 1 113 1.9 0.00 481219 $22 mn................... Other Nonscheduled Air
Transportation.
DOYON AIR TRANSPORT LLC.................. 1 127 1.0 0.01 488999 $22 mn................... All Other Support
Activities for
Transportation.
RED LEASING LLC.......................... 2 359 0.2 0.01 532490 $35 mn................... Other Comm'l and Industrial
Mach. and Equip. Rental &
Leasing.
RAINBOW KING LODGE INC................... 1 209 0.2 0.02 721199 $8 mn.................... All Other Traveler
Accommodation.
PANTECHNICON AVIATION LTD................ 1 235 0.2 0.02 532411 $40 mn................... Comm'l Air, Rail, and Water
Transp. Equip. Rental &
Leasing.
EMERALD AIR SERVICE INC.................. 1 250 1.0 0.02 481219 $22 mn................... Other Nonscheduled Air
Transportation.
BLUE AIRCRAFT LLC........................ 2 750 0.2 0.02 483000 1,500 emp................ Scheduled Passenger Air
Transportation.
TALON AIR SERVICE INC.................... 1 520 0.2 0.02 481219 $22 mn................... Other Nonscheduled Air
Transportation.
BALD MOUNTAIN AIR SERVICE INC............ 1 700 0.2 0.03 481219 $22 mn................... Other Nonscheduled Air
Transportation.
NORTHWEST SEAPLANES INC.................. 1 750 0.3 0.05 481111 1,500 emp................ Scheduled Passenger Air
Transportation.
TALKEETNA AIR TAXI INC................... 6 4,600 0.2 0.07 481211 1,500 emp................ Nonscheduled Chartered
Passenger Air
Transportation.
GOLDEN EAGLE OUTFITTERS INC.............. 1 960 0.2 0.07 713990 $8 mn.................... All Other Amusement and
Recreation Industries.
MUNICH HANS W DBA........................ 1 998 0.2 0.08 481219 $22 mn................... Other Nonscheduled Air
Transportation.
DESTINATION ALASKA ADVENTURE CO LLC...... 1 1,300 0.3 0.09 481211 1,500 emp................ Nonscheduled Chartered
Passenger Air
Transportation.
RUSTAIR INC.............................. 6 10,224 0.2 0.13 532411 $40 mn................... Comm'l Air, Rail, and Water
Transp. Equip. Rental &
Leasing.
KENMORE AIR HARBOR LLC................... 11 51,500 0.2 0.15 481111 1,500 emp................ Scheduled Passenger Air
Transportation.
RAPIDS CAMP LODGE INC.................... 1 7,000 0.3 0.29 721214 $8 mn.................... Recreational and Vacation
Camps (except
Campgrounds).
BANK OF UTAH TRUSTEE..................... 1 90,000 0.5 0.46 522110 $750 mn in assets........ Commercial Banking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ 45 170,822 7.70
Average.............................. ......... 8,541 0.38 0.06
Median............................... ......... 725 0.17 0.02 ......... ......................... ...........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: 1. The size standard is the maximum size for the NAICS industry considered by the SBA to be a small entity. 2. AD costs per airplane are 1 work
hour x $85 + $85 reporting costs for initial inspection, for a total of $170.

[[Page 41869]]

5. All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict

There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed rule.

6. Significant Alternatives Considered

The FAA did not find any significant regulatory alternatives to the
proposed AD that would still accomplish the safety objectives of this
proposed AD.

Regulatory Findings

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
(2) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the RFA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec. 39.13 [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier
Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2020-1076; Project
Identifier MCAI-2020-01201-A.

(a) Comments Due Date

The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by August 14, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

This AD applies to Viking Air Limited (type certificate
previously held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Model
DHC-3 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2700, Flight Control
System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as corrosion, wear,
and fatigue-related degradation in aging aircraft. The FAA is
issuing this AD to detect and address corrosion and cracking. This
condition, if not addressed, could lead to structural failure with
consequent loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

(1) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD,
incorporate into the existing maintenance records required by 14 CFR
91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2), as applicable for your airplane, the
actions and associated thresholds and intervals, including life
limits, specified in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking DHC-3 Otter
Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1-3-5,
Revision IR, dated December 21, 2017 (Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision
IR). Do each initial task within 6 months after the effective date
of this AD or at the threshold for each applicable task specified in
Part 3 of Viking Product Support Manual PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR,
whichever occurs later. Where Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR,
specifies contacting Viking regarding a component's alloy and heat
treat condition, this AD requires contacting the Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, Transport Canada, or Viking's
Transport Canada Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by
the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1): Viking DHC-3 Otter Service Bulletin
V3/0010, Revision NC, dated March 19, 2020, contains additional
information related to this AD.
(2) After the action required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD has
been done, no alternative actions and associated thresholds and
intervals, including life limits, are allowed unless they are
approved as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(h) Reporting

(1) For inspections done after the effective date of this AD,
report to Viking any Level 2 or Level 3 corrosion, as specified in
Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, at the times specified in and in
accordance with part 3, paragraph 5, of Viking PSM 1-3-5, Revision
IR.
(2) For inspections done before the effective date of this AD,
within 30 days after the effective date of this AD report to Viking
any Level 2 or Level 3 corrosion, as specified in Viking PSM 1-3-5,
Revision IR, in accordance with part 3, paragraph 5, of Viking PSM
1-3-5, Revision IR.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, mail
it to the address identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD or email
to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#efd6c2aeb9bcc2aea6bdc2d8dcdfc2aea2a0acaf898e8ec1888099">[email&#160;protected]</a>. If mailing information, also submit
information by email.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved specifically for this AD by the Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA.

(j) Additional Information

(1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2018-04, dated January 19,
2018, for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found
in the AD docket at <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FAA-2020-1076.
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Deep Gaurav,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 228-3731; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8eb7a3eff8fda3e0f7efede1a3ede1fdcee8efefa0e9e1f8">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (k)(3) and (4) of this AD.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Viking DHC-3 Otter Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion
Control Manual, PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, dated December 21, 2017.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way, Sidney,
British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone: (800) 663-8444; fax: (250)
656-0673; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e1958482898f8882808dcf929491918e9395a197888a888f86808893cf828e8c">[email&#160;protected]</a>; website:
<a href="http://vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins">vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins</a>.
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the

[[Page 41870]]

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b0d6c29ed9dec3c0d5d3c4d9dfdef0ded1c2d19ed7dfc6">[email&#160;protected]</a>, or go to: <a href="http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html">www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html</a>.

Issued on June 21, 2023.
Michael Linegang,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-13617 Filed 6-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on June 28, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.