[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 25, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24927-24937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08551]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0190; Project Identifier 2019-CE-048-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
that would have superseded Airworthiness Directive (AD) 64-09-03, which 
applies to all de Havilland (type certificate now held by Viking Air 
Limited) Model DHC-2 ``Beaver'' airplanes. This action revises the NPRM 
by changing the required action specified in the proposed AD. 
Additionally, the FAA is publishing an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) to aid the public in commenting on the potential 
impacts to small entities from this proposal. The FAA is reopening the 
comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on the revised 
proposed action and whether the revised proposed action would have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these 
products and the agency is requesting comments on this SNPRM.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by June 9, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: (202) 493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FAA-2022-0190; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 
docket contains the NPRM, this SNPRM, the mandatory continuing 
airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments received, and other 
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact 
Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way, Sidney, 
British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone: (800) 663-8444; fax: (250) 
656-0673; email: [email protected]; website: 
vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins.
     You may view this service information at the FAA, 
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, 
Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this 
material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Delisio, Continued Operational 
Safety Program Manager, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, 
Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (516) 228-7321; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or 
arguments about this proposal, including the IRFA. Send your comments 
to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-
0190; Project Identifier 2019-CE-048-AD'' at the beginning of your 
comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the 
proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include 
supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the 
closing date and may again revise this proposal because of those 
comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in 
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to 
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The 
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal 
contact received about this SNPRM.

Confidential Business Information

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

Background

    The FAA issued an NPRM (87 FR 7065, February 8, 2022; corrected 
February 18, 2022 (87 FR 9274)) that would apply to all Viking Air 
Limited (Viking) Model DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III 
airplanes. The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 64-09-03, Amendment 718 
(29 FR 5390, April 22, 1964) (AD 64-09-03), which applies to all de 
Havilland (type certificate now held by Viking) Model

[[Page 24928]]

DHC-2 ``Beaver'' airplanes. AD 64-09-03 requires inspecting the aileron 
mass balance weight arms for cracks and corrosion and replacing any 
damaged part. AD 64-09-03 resulted from cracks and corrosion found on 
aileron mass balance weight arm part numbers (P/Ns) C2WA151, C2WA152, 
C2WA127, and C2WA128.
    The NPRM proposed to require establishing a corrosion prevention 
and control program to identify and correct corrosion. In the NPRM, the 
FAA also proposed to require completing all of the initial tasks 
identified in the program and reporting corrosion findings to Viking. 
The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2019-25, dated July 5, 2019, issued by 
Transport Canada, which is the airworthiness authority for Canada 
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''). The MCAI states that it 
supersedes prior Transport Canada ADs related to a supplementary 
inspection and corrosion control program for aging airplanes, which 
identifies specific locations of an airplane that must be inspected to 
ensure corrosion-related degradation does not result in an unsafe 
condition. The MCAI continues to require the tasks included in the 
initial issue of Viking, DHC-2 Beaver Supplemental Inspection and 
Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1-2-5, dated June 21, 2017, and requires 
additional inspections for components of airframe systems other than 
flight controls, which are included in Viking DHC-2 Beaver Supplemental 
Inspection and Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, dated 
January 10, 2019 (Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1). Corrosion-related 
degradation, if not addressed, could lead to structural failure with 
consequent loss of control of the airplane.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FAA-2022-0190.

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

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

Comments

    The FAA received comments from 23 commenters. The commenters were 
the Alaska Air Carriers Association, Alaska Air Transporters, Alaska 
Aircraft Sales and Maintenance, Alaska Seaplanes, Athens Insurance, 
Beluga Air, LLC, Enchanted Lake Lodge, Mountain Flying Service, Regal 
Air, Tailwind Aviation Inc., Taquan Air, Trail Ridge Air Inc., Ward 
Air, Inc., and several individuals.
    The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the 
FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Withdraw NPRM: Current Regulations Are Adequate

    Alaska Air Carriers Association, Beluga Air, LLC, Trail Ridge Air, 
Regal Air, Ward Air, Inc., and individual commenters stated that the 
NPRM is not needed due to existing requirements for annual and 100-hour 
inspections in the Federal Aviation Regulations.
    The FAA does not agree that current regulations require the same 
inspections as those proposed in the NPRM. The FAA acknowledges that 
some of the tasks are in locations of the airplane where 100-hour or 
annual inspections require other inspections, but the inspections 
proposed in this SNPRM are focused on certain areas of the airplane and 
more detailed than those covered in the required annual or 100-hour 
inspections. The inspections specified in this SNPRM are part of a 
supplemental inspection and corrosion prevention program that is 
included in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1. These 
inspection types and intervals address locations or parts that are not 
currently required to be inspected as part of annual or 100-hour 
inspections in existing regulations. These new inspections and 
intervals are needed to detect and address corrosion, which could lead 
to structural failure with consequent loss of control of the airplane. 
The FAA has not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.

Request To Withdraw NPRM: Impact on Small Entities

    Alaska Air Carriers Association, Alaska Seaplanes, Beluga Air, LLC, 
Regal Air, Trail Ridge Air, Ward Air, Inc., and individual commenters 
questioned the statement in the Regulatory Findings section of the NPRM 
that the NPRM ``[w]ould not have a significant economic impact, 
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under 
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.'' Alaska Air Carriers 
Association, Alaska Seaplanes, Beluga Air, LLC, Mountain Flying 
Services, Regal Air, and Trail Ridge Air, noted that Alaska tourism, 
fishing, hunting, and other businesses would face an adverse economic 
impact. Some of these commenters noted that the costs of the proposed 
requirements could put some small or medium-sized businesses out of 
business. Alaska Air Carriers Association, Alaska Seaplanes, Beluga 
Air, LLC, and several individual commenters suggested that the NPRM 
would waste resources or add an undue burden for the small companies 
that operate these airplanes.
    The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns and infers that the 
commenters are requesting that the NPRM be withdrawn due to the 
perceived adverse economic impact on small entities. Under 14 CFR 39.1, 
issuance of an AD is based on the finding that an unsafe condition 
exists or is likely to develop in aircraft of a particular type design. 
An aging airplane requires more attention during maintenance procedures 
and, at times, more frequent inspections of structural components to 
detect damage due to environmental deterioration, accidental damage, 
and fatigue. The unsafe condition addressed in this SNPRM includes 
undetected corrosion, which could lead to structural failure and 
consequent loss of control of the airplane. Inspections and repair are 
therefore necessary to detect and correct such corrosion before it 
leads to structural failure. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM 
regarding this issue.
    Regarding the question of the NPRM having a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the FAA has developed 
an IRFA for this proposed action and a reason for issuing this SNPRM is 
to solicit comments on the IRFA.

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

    Alaska Aircraft Sales and Maintenance and an individual commenter 
asked how many accidents could be traced back to corrosion on these 
airplanes. One individual commenter added that in over 25 years of 
performing maintenance, the commenter had not seen any Model DHC-2 
airplanes show an unusual tendency for corrosion or excessive stress 
and added that, on average, there is less corrosion on a Model DHC-2 
airplane than is typical of airplanes more than 10 years old. A 
different individual commenter noted that in 37 years of experience, 
the commenter was unaware of the affected airplanes having

[[Page 24929]]

accidents or incidents due to corrosion. That individual commenter 
added that these airplanes are painted before assembly with corrosion-
preventing primer and are probably less prone to corrosion than 
airplanes of the same age that are painted on the outside after 
assembly. Taquan Air stated that it is unaware of accidents or failures 
associated with corrosion on the affected airplanes. The FAA infers 
that the commenters are requesting that the FAA withdraw the NPRM.
    The FAA does not agree with the commenters' requests to withdraw 
the NPRM. According to 14 CFR 39.5, the issuance of an AD is based on 
the finding that an unsafe condition exists or is likely to exist or 
develop in other products of the same type design. This section of the 
Federal Aviation Regulations does not specify that an accident is 
necessary for the FAA to determine that there is an unsafe condition. 
In this case, the FAA independently reviewed the MCAI and related 
service information and determined an unsafe condition exists and an AD 
is needed to address that unsafe condition. Further, it is within the 
FAA's authority and responsibility to issue ADs to require actions to 
address unsafe conditions that are not otherwise being addressed (or 
are not addressed adequately) by routine maintenance procedures. In 
addition, based upon detailed airplane tear-down inspections performed 
by Viking (the design approval holder), the FAA has determined that the 
existing maintenance procedures and inspections will not adequately 
detect corrosion. Although this SNPRM is not tied to a specific 
corrosion related accident, the FAA has determined that such undetected 
corrosion could lead to structural failure. The FAA has a 
responsibility to issue ADs to correct identified unsafe conditions in 
aircraft, regardless of the location or cause. The FAA has not changed 
this SNPRM regarding this issue.

Request To Withdraw NPRM: No Obligation To Adopt the Proposed AD

    Alaska Air Carriers Association, Alaska Seaplanes, Beluga Air LLC, 
Regal Air, Trail Ridge Air, and individual commenters requested that 
the FAA withdraw the NPRM, explaining the FAA has no obligation to 
enact the NPRM simply because Transport Canada enacted an AD. Some of 
these commenters claimed that finalizing the NPRM to a final rule would 
contradict the FAA's requirement to ``encourage and develop civil 
aeronautics'' by imposing substantial costs and efforts to comply with 
that final rule.
    The FAA disagrees with withdrawing the NPRM. Although the FAA 
acknowledges that it has no obligation to adopt an AD to parallel the 
requirements in the Transport Canada AD, the FAA has a responsibility 
to issue ADs to require actions to address unsafe conditions that are 
not otherwise being addressed. As previously stated, the FAA 
independently reviewed the MCAI and related service information and 
determined an unsafe condition exists and an AD is needed to address 
that unsafe condition. The FAA may address such unsafe conditions by 
requiring revisions to maintenance records as a condition under which 
airplanes may continue to be operated. Part of the FAA's obligation to 
``encourage and develop civil aeronautics'' is to take any necessary 
action to keep the existing aircraft fleet safe, which includes the 
issuance of ADs. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM regarding this 
issue.

Request To Acknowledge Impacts on Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Alaska Air Carriers Association, Alaska Seaplanes, Beluga Air LLC, 
and individual commenters requested that the FAA revise the NPRM to 
acknowledge that intrastate aviation in Alaska would be affected. 
Alaska Seaplanes asserted that 13 local Alaska businesses stated that 
the proposed AD would put them out of business; the commenter added 
that these businesses are the lifeline to small and rural communities 
not accessible by other aircraft.
    The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns. In light of the 
heavy reliance on aviation for intrastate transportation in Alaska, the 
FAA has fully considered the effects of this SNPRM (including costs to 
be borne by affected operators) from the earliest possible stages of AD 
development. The NPRM was based on those considerations, and was 
developed with regard to minimizing the economic impact on operators to 
the extent possible, consistent with the safety objectives of this 
SNPRM. In any event, the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) 
require operators to correct an unsafe condition identified on an 
airplane to ensure operation of that airplane in an airworthy 
condition. The FAA has determined that the need to correct the unsafe 
conditions outweighs any impact on aviation in Alaska. The FAA has not 
changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.
    In addition, regarding the costs of this SNPRM, the FAA has 
developed an IRFA for this proposed action and a reason for issuing 
this SNPRM is to solicit comments on the IRFA.

Request To Supersede All Corrosion ADs for the Affected Models

    Alaska Air Carriers Association, Beluga Air LLC, Mountail Flying 
Services, Regal Air, Ward Air, Inc., and individual commenters 
requested that the NPRM be revised to supersede all ADs related to 
corrosion prevention and maintenance for the affected airplanes, not 
just AD 64-09-03. An individual noted that the NPRM conflicts with more 
than just AD 64-09-03 and added that AD 2008-11-11, Amendment 39-15533 
(73 FR 34611, June 18, 2008) (AD 2008-11-11) specifies a penetrant 
inspection for cracks in the front spar center section web of the 
tailplane, while task C55-10-02 in Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, allows 
using a penetrant or an eddy current inspection, which seems 
contradictory.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenters' requests to supersede all 
corrosion-related ADs for the affected airplanes. The FAA has reviewed 
all potentially related ADs against the proposed requirements in this 
SNPRM and determined that no other ADs need to be superseded or 
rescinded. Any other ADs involving inspecting for corrosion on the 
affected airplanes require either inspecting different parts or 
locations on an airplane or the inspections are not as in-depth or 
repetitive; therefore they do not overlap with the proposed 
inspections. This includes AD 2008-11-11, which requires inspecting a 
different part than that in task C55-10-02 of Viking PSM 1-2-5, 
Revision 1. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.

Request To Add Airplanes to Aging Aircraft or Other Existing Rulemaking

    Taquan Air and an individual commenter requested that the unsafe 
condition be addressed by adding these airplanes to the Aging Aircraft 
rule (14 CFR 135.422), rather than through the NPRM. The commenters 
noted that doing so would evenly spread the burden, rather than having 
different corrosion control policies for different airplane models. 
Taquan Air noted that Alaska has been exempted from the Aging Aircraft 
rule. Both commenters suggested that 14 CFR part 43 appendix D (which 
specifies the scope and detail of items to be included in annual and 
100-hour inspections) be rewritten to address corrosion. The individual 
commenter added that 14 CFR 135.422 should apply to all part 135 
operators, with a similar 14 CFR regulation applicable to part 91 
operators.

[[Page 24930]]

    The FAA disagrees with adding this to the Aging Aircraft rule. The 
proposed action would address a known unsafe condition on the structure 
of Viking Model DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes. 
If the FAA finds that other aircraft have similar issues to the 
affected airplanes, the FAA would look at appropriate rulemaking for 
those aircraft also. For the Viking Model DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, 
and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes, as stated previously, the FAA has 
determined that annual and 100-hour inspections are currently not 
adequate to address the unsafe condition identified in this SNPRM. The 
FAA has a responsibility to address an unsafe condition that is not 
addressed by general maintenance by issuing an AD. Therefore, the 
proposed actions of this SNPRM are the appropriate way of addressing 
the unsafe condition. Adding inspections for corrosion to 14 CFR part 
43 appendix D to address the unsafe condition identified in this SNPRM 
is not appropriate because that corrective action would not be limited 
to the products affected by this unsafe condition. 14 CFR part 43 
appendix D contains general inspections that are not specific to 
individual products. Therefore, issuing an AD is the appropriate 
vehicle for addressing this identified unsafe condition. The FAA has 
not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.

Request To Revise the Number of Affected Airplanes

    Alaska Air Transporters, Alaska Seaplanes, Athens Insurance, 
Enchanted Lake Lodge, Tailwind Aviation, and individual commenters 
requested that the Costs of Compliance section in the NPRM be revised 
to reflect that more than 135 airplanes of U.S. registry would be 
affected. Several of these commenters suggested that 382 airplanes of 
U.S. registry would be affected, while one individual commenter stated 
that there are ``more like 400 airplanes involved.'' A second 
individual commenter noted that many of these airplanes have been 
erroneously registered as Model L-20A airplanes due to incorrect 
procedures when the airplanes were imported or converted from military 
to civilian use.
    The FAA agrees with the commenters' request to revise the number of 
affected airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA has re-evaluated the data 
and determined that 409 airplanes of U.S. registry is a better 
estimate. The FAA notes that there are no airplanes on the U.S. 
registry listed as Model L-20A airplanes. The FAA has revised the Costs 
of Compliance section of this SNPRM accordingly.

Request To Revise Costs of Compliance: Labor Rate

    Alaska Air Transporters, Athens Insurance, Enchanted Lake Lodge, 
Tailwind Aviation, and several individual commenters requested that the 
FAA revise the labor rate in the Costs of Compliance section of the 
NPRM. The commenters noted that current labor rates are anywhere from 
$110 to $150 per hour. Several of these commenters added that the 
proposed costs do not consider airplane downtime or the current 
shortage of qualified mechanics able to do the inspections.
    Additionally, Alaska Seaplanes asserted that three operators have 
complied with the service information referenced in the NPRM and the 
cost of compliance was $65,000 to $125,000, not the $29,070 per 
airplane estimated in the NPRM.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenters' requests to revise the labor 
rate in the Costs of Compliance section of this SNPRM. The FAA notes 
that the labor rate of $85 per hour is provided by the FAA Office of 
Aviation Policy and Plans for the FAA to use when estimating the labor 
costs of complying with AD requirements. Regarding the comments on 
down-time and labor shortages, the FAA acknowledges the commenters' 
concerns. The FAA recognizes that in accomplishing the requirements of 
any AD, operators might incur ``indirect'' costs in addition to the 
``direct'' costs that are reflected in the cost analysis presented in 
the AD. However, the cost analysis in ADs typically does not include 
indirect costs since the FAA does not have sufficient information to 
evaluate these costs including additional down-time and loss of 
revenue. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.

Request To Revise Requirements Based on Airplane Usage Conditions

    Alaska Aircraft Sales and Maintenance, Alaska Air Transporters, 
Athens Insurance, Enchanted Lake Lodge, Mountain Flying Service, 
Tailwind Aviation, Taquan Air, and several individuals requested that 
the NPRM be revised to have different requirements based on how the 
airplane is used. Alaska Aircraft Sales and Maintenance suggested that 
the NPRM penalized operators by applying one program to all operating 
environments. Several of these commenters noted that airplanes used on 
wheels or only in freshwater would have less exposure to factors 
causing corrosion than airplanes operated in saltwater and suggested 
the requirements should be revised accordingly. Mountain Flying 
Services noted that its airplane is kept in a heated hanger when not in 
use, has been rebuilt, and has had minimal time in water, which makes 
it less susceptible to corrosion. An individual commenter suggested the 
NPRM should allow both specificity and flexibility based on atmospheric 
conditions, saltwater exposure, and time on floats.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenters' requests to change the NPRM 
based on different airplane operational usage. There is no current 
requirement to track the hours spent flying in different conditions or 
types of water. Additionally, operators may not know the entire flight 
history of an airplane. Without this detailed knowledge of each 
airplane, it would be impossible for the FAA to develop a special set 
of inspections based on airplane usage conditions. However, operators 
may submit a proposal for revised requirements by requesting an 
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) using the procedures specified 
in paragraph (i) of this SNPRM. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM 
regarding this issue.

Request To Clarify Process for Creating Corrosion Prevention and 
Control Program

    Alaska Air Carriers Association, Alaska Aircraft Sales and 
Maintenance, Regal Air, Taquan Air, Trail Ridge Air Inc., and several 
individual commenters asked for clarity regarding the process of 
creating and getting approval for a corrosion prevention and control 
program. Alaska Aircraft Sales and Maintenance asked what the guidance 
will be for an operator who chooses to write its own program versus 
getting an AMOC. Alaska Aircraft Sales and Maintenance asked if any 
maintenance inspector could approve the program or if it would have to 
go to the aircraft certification office (ACO), and further questioned 
how the operator would comply in a timely manner if ACO approval is 
delayed. One individual commenter noted that the proposed AD does not 
include a specific definition of what the program would require, only 
that it should line up with an undated revision of a Viking maintenance 
manual. That same individual commenter added that the affected 
airplanes are already maintained following maintenance instructions and 
recommended practices (and compliance times when scheduling permits) in 
Viking Service Bulletin V2/0011, Revision NC, dated November 28,

[[Page 24931]]

2019 (Viking Service Bulletin V2/0011, Revision NC), which is related 
to the Viking maintenance manual, so operators should not be held to a 
higher level of accountability. A second individual commenter noted 
that it appears the NPRM would give Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, the 
same authority and weight as an airworthiness limitation, or operators 
could write their own program and get it approved by the FAA. That same 
individual commenter questioned what would happen when Viking PSM 1-2-
5, Revision 1, is revised and contradicts the AD requirements. A third 
individual commenter suggested it is unfair for the FAA to require 
operators to develop a program without the proper qualifications, 
experience, or training. That same individual commenter suggested that 
the lack of guidance and procedures would leave room for 
interpretation, leading to multiple exhanges with the FAA and an ever-
evolving process that could lead to significant delays and could ground 
airplanes. A fourth individual commenter added that trying to design a 
manual to be approved by several different parties could lead to 
confusion for both the operator submitting the manual and the FAA, and 
suggested targeting the area of concern and inspections based on 
existing Advisory Circular (AC) 43-4B, Corrosion Control for Aircraft, 
dated September 11, 2018. Taquan Air asked how long it would take to 
get a program approved. Taquan Air also asked if the Viking corrosion 
control program is an approved method for establishing a corrosion 
prevention and control program. Taquan Air suggested that the FAA 
establish areas that need to be in the program and an outline of 
expectations, so operators can get it correct.
    The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding the 
creation of a corrosion prevention and control program. To make 
compliance easier for operators and eliminate the need to create an 
FAA-approved corrosion prevention and control program, the FAA 
simplified the proposed actions. This SNPRM would require incorporating 
the inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, into 
the existing maintenance records. In Note 1 to paragraph (g) of the 
NPRM, the use of Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, was identified as an 
acceptable means of compliance but was not required to be used. That 
note has been removed from this SNPRM and the subsequent note that 
appeared as Note 2 to paragraph (g) has been has re-identified as Note 
1 to paragraph (g) in this proposed AD.
    The FAA acknowledges that Viking Service Bulletin V2/0011, Revision 
NC, is related to this SNPRM because it lists the inspection tasks and 
descriptions that are specified in Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, and 
specifies to accomplish those tasks following the procedures in Viking 
PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1. Note 1 to paragraph (g) in this proposed AD 
refers to Viking Service Bulletin V2/0011, Revision NC, as an 
additional source of information.
    If Transport Canada or the FAA determines that any revised tasks in 
a future Viking PSM are necessary to address an unsafe condition, the 
FAA will consider future rulemaking to require operators to accomplish 
those tasks. The FAA also acknowledges the commenters' concerns 
regarding delays and timeliness of approving a corrosion prevention and 
control program, however, since this proposed AD would require 
operators to incorporate the inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 
1-2-5, Revision 1, into the existing maintenance records, those 
concerns should be mitigated.

Request To Remove or Revise Certain Inspection Requirements

    An individual commenter stated that Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, 
is duplicative of Viking PSM 1-2-2, DHC 2 Beaver Maintenance Manual, 
Revision 4, dated March 28, 2018 (Viking PSM 1-2-2, Revision 4), and 
provided a summary of inspections that are already included in Viking 
PSM 1-2-2, Revision 4, and other service information. The commenter 
added that the new inspections in Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, are 
non-destuctive testing (NDT) inspections that in Canada are issued with 
a pass/fall certificate. The commenter added that the pass/fail 
documentation does not contain any actual measured results, therefore 
the statistical predictive modeling for time to failure (which would 
allow operators to plan replacement/overhaul activities) cannot be 
accomplished. The commenter provided several suggestions including: 
Viking be required to supply measured results and predictive indicators 
to operators; duplicate inspection points related to Viking PSM 1-2-2, 
Revision 4, be removed from the NPRM; a recommended order of operations 
for the inspections be provided so they are streamlined; and that ADs 
be combined for simplification of maintenance.
    The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concerns about potential 
duplication between Viking PSM 1-2-2, Revision 4, and Viking PSM 1-2-5, 
Revision 1. However, the inspections in these two documents are 
designed to complement each other. Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, refers 
to Viking PSM 1-2-2, Revision 4, and other documents. The recommended 
supplemental inspection and control program in Viking PSM 1-2-5, 
Revision 1, does not replace any aspect of the current inspection 
program that is described in Viking PSM 1-2-2, Revision 4, or other 
referenced documents. The FAA further notes that the FAA cannot use an 
AD to require Viking to supply results, indicators, or other 
information to operators, although individual operators could request 
that information from Viking. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM 
regarding this issue.

Request To Allow Phase-in of Inspections

    Alaska Air Transporters, Alaska Aircraft Sales and Maintenance, 
Athens Insurance, Enchanted Lake Lodge, Mountain Flying Services, 
Tailwind Aviation, and two individual commenters requested that the 
NPRM be revised to allow a phase-in period for the proposed new 
requirements. Several of these commenters noted that fully implementing 
the Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, and inspections in one year would 
double or triple their budgeted maintenance costs. Several of these 
commenters suggested allowing a 5-year incremental implementation of 
the manual, with different inspections required each year. One 
individual commenter noted that the airplane fleet is not that large, 
and flexibility could be afforded, which would allow operators to use 
multiple seasons of revenue to fund the inspections. Alaska Aircraft 
Sales and Maintenance noted that the 8-month deadline for initial 
inspections is too restrictive and should be phased-in, similar to 
Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, or aligned to be performed at the same 
time as other required service actions. Alaska Aircraft Sales and 
Maintenance added that operators should be provided credit for the 
initial inspection if they have already done a given task.
    The FAA partially agrees with the commenters' requests to extend 
the compliance times. Paragraph (g) of this proposed AD would require 
incorporating the inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-2-5, 
Revision 1, into the existing maintenance records and doing each 
initial task within 6 months after the effective date of the final rule 
or at the threshold for each applicable task specified in Part 3 of 
Viking Product Support Manual PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, whichever occurs 
later.

[[Page 24932]]

The FAA disagrees with increasing the compliance time up to 5 years.
    Regarding Alaska Aircraft Sales and Maintenance's request for 
credit, the FAA agrees to provide clarification. Paragraph (f) of this 
proposed AD states to accomplish the required actions within the 
compliance times specified, ``unless already done.'' Therefore, if 
operators have accomplished the actions required for compliance 
specified in this SNPRM before the effective date of the final rule, no 
further action is necessary, unless the task is a repetitive action and 
then it would be required at the repetitive interval. The FAA has not 
revised this SNPRM in this regard.

Request To Allow Mechanics To Perform Certain Tasks

    An individual requested that ``properly trained mechanics'' be 
allowed to perform the NDT inspections (tasks). Ward Air requested that 
an ``in-house trained aircraft technician'' using ``modern technology'' 
be allowed to do the required ultrasonic testing rather than requiring 
an operator to hire an outside Level II trained technician to perform 
the testing.
    The FAA partially agrees with the commenters' requests. Operators 
can use an in-house properly trained individual with qualifications 
equivalent to Level II or Level III to do the NDT inspections. FAA 
Advisory Circular 65-31B, Training, Qualification, and Certification of 
Nondestructive Inspection Personnel, dated February 24, 2014, contains 
FAA-approved Level II and Level III qualification standards critieria 
for inspection personnel doing NDT inspections. The FAA does not agree 
that this SNPRM specifies a requirement to hire outside properly 
trained Level II NDT personnel. Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, specifies 
that personnel certified as Level II or higher, as acceptable to the 
operator's cognizant airworthiness authority, can do the NDT 
inspections. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM regarding this issue.

Request To Require Reporting to FAA Not Viking

    An individual commenter requested that the NPRM be revised so that 
the results of any required reporting are sent to the FAA through the 
FAA's service difficulty reporting system, and not sent to a foreign 
company (Viking) that is not overseen by the FAA.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. Transport Canada is 
the State of Design Authority and Viking is the type certificate holder 
for Model DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes. As 
such, they should be evaluating the reports to determine if any 
additional actions should be required to address the unsafe condition 
and through the appropriate bilateral airworthiness agreement will 
share such information with the FAA. For these reasons, the reports 
should be sent to Viking. The FAA has not changed this SNPRM regarding 
this issue.

Revised Estimated Costs of Compliance in This SNPRM

    Based on the new requirement specified in paragraph (g) of this 
proposed AD to incorporate the inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking 
PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, into the existing maintenance records, the FAA 
has revised the estimated costs associated with paragraph (g) of this 
AD from 342 work-hours to 1 work-hour. The proposed requirements to 
establish a corrosion prevention program and the initial inspection 
tasks that were included in the NPRM were removed from this SNPRM.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements in This SNPRM

    This proposed AD would retain none of the requirements of AD 64-09-
03. This proposed AD would require, within 90 days after the effective 
date of the final rule, incorporating into the existing maintenance 
records the actions specified in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-2-5, 
Revision 1, and doing each initial task within 6 months after the 
effective date of the proposed AD or at the threshold for each 
applicable task specified in Part 3 of Viking Product Support Manual 
PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, whichever occurs later. This proposed AD would 
also require reporting corrosion findings to Viking. Because the 
inspection of the aileron balance weight arms required by AD 64-09-03 
would be included in the revision of the existing maintenance records, 
this proposed AD would supersede AD 64-09-03.

ADs Mandating Airworthiness Limitations (ALS)

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, which specifies 
procedures for inspecting locations of the airplane that are 
particularly susceptible to corrosion-related degradation and includes 
repetitive inspection intervals, defines the different levels of 
corrosion, and provides corrective action if corrosion is found.
    This service information is reasonably available because the 
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of 
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Viking Service Bulletin V2/0011, Revision NC. This 
service information provides a list of new inspection tasks that have 
been added to the DHC-2 supplementary inspection and corrosion control 
program, Viking PSM-1-2-5, Revision 1.

Impact on Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    In light of the heavy reliance on aviation for intrastate 
transportation in Alaska, the FAA has fully considered the effects of 
this SNPRM (including costs to be borne by affected operators) from the 
earliest possible stages of AD development. As previously stated, 14

[[Page 24933]]

CFR part 39 requires operators to correct an unsafe condition 
identified on an airplane to ensure operation of that airplane in an 
airworthy condition. The FAA has determined that the need to correct 
corrosion-related degradation in aging aircraft, which could lead to 
structural failure with consequent loss of control of the airplane, 
outweighs any impact on aviation in Alaska.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would 
affect 409 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it 
would take about 1 work-hour per airplane at a labor rate of $85 per 
work-hour to revise the existing maintenance records.
    Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of this proposed 
AD on U.S. operators to be $34,765 or $85 per airplane.
    The FAA estimates it would take about 1 work-hour to report any 
Level 2 corrosion found during the proposed initial or subsequent 
inspections or any Level 3 corrosion found during the proposed initial 
or subsequent inspections, for an estimated cost of $85 per airplane.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

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

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

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

1. Reasons the Action Is Being Considered

    The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 64-09-03, which applies to all de 
Havilland (type certificate now held by Viking) Model DHC-2 ``Beaver'' 
airplanes, because after the FAA issued AD 64-09-03 Transport Canada 
superseded its MCAI to identify specific locations of an airplane that 
must be inspected to ensure corrosion-related degradation does not 
result in an unsafe condition. The NPRM proposed to

[[Page 24934]]

require establishing a corrosion prevention and control program to 
identify and correct corrosion, completing all of the initial tasks 
identified in the program, and reporting corrosion findings to Viking. 
The proposed corrosion prevention and control program would incude the 
inspection of the aileron balance weight arms required by AD 64-09-03.

2. Objectives and Legal Basis of the Proposed Rule

    The objective of the actions proposed in this SNPRM is to meet the 
same safety intent as those actions proposed in the NPRM. The FAA 
issued the NPRM under the authority described in Title 49, Subtitle 
VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, General requirements. Under 
that section, the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of civil 
aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum safety standards 
required in the interest of safety. This regulation is within the scope 
of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is 
likely to exist or develop on Viking Model DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, 
and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes.
    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to 
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the 
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, 
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

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

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

4. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities

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

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

    The FAA Civil Aircraft Registry shows 409 Model DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 
Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes that would be affected by this 
SNPRM. These 409 airplanes are registered to 235 private businesses, 76 
individuals, and 3 government agencies. The 76 individuals and 3 
government agencies are excluded from this analysis as the RFA does not 
apply to individuals and the 3 government agencies are not small 
entities as defined by the RFA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Two airplanes are registered to the U.S. Department of the 
Interior. Five airplanes are registered to the United States Forest 
Service, within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Two airplanes 
are registered to the State of Alaska to the Alaska Department of 
Fish & Game. These government agencies and are not small entities 
under the RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three hundred nineteen (319) airplanes are owned and operated by 
235 private entities. A sample of 50 private businesses was randomly 
selected for the analysis.\3\ Of the 50 sampled entities, 45 were found 
to be small. The results of the cost impact analysis for these 45 small 
entities is shown in Table 1 and will be discussed in the following 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The sample was selected by shuffling the order of the list 
of 409 DHC-2 airplanes in the FAA Registry and going down the 
randomized list. If revenue and employee count data were available, 
it was included in the sample; otherwise, it was excluded. This 
process was repeated until 50 entities, for which revenue and 
employee data were available, had been added to the sample. The 
shuffling was accomplished by giving each entry in the registry an 
index value between 0 and 1 using Excel's RAND function. The entries 
were then sorted by that index value to randomize their order.

                                                         Table 1--Cost Impact on Small Entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Cost/
             Operator                 FAA registry type     DHC-2 A/C   Revenues     Cost     revenue     NAICS      Size standard      NAICS industry
                                                                        ($1,000)                (%)        code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALASKAS FISHING UNLIMITED INC....  Non-Citizen Corp.......          1         79     $170.0        0.2     721214  $8 mn...........  Recreational and
                                                                                                                                      Vacation Camps
                                                                                                                                      (except
                                                                                                                                      Campgrounds).
DOUGLAS AVIATION LTD.............  Corporation............          2         90      340.0        0.4     541990  $17 mn..........  All Other
                                                                                                                                      Professional,
                                                                                                                                      Scientific and
                                                                                                                                      Technical
                                                                                                                                      Services.
NORTHSTAR HOLDINGS LLC...........  LLC....................          3        110      510.0        0.5     551112  $40 mn..........  Offices of Other
                                                                                                                                      Holding Companies.
RHK OF KANSAS....................  Corporation............          1        110      170.0        0.2     541110  $13.5 mn........  Offices of Lawyers.
SUMMIT LEASING LLC...............  LLC....................          1        110      170.0        0.2     532490  $35 mn..........  Other Comm'l & Ind.
                                                                                                                                      Machinery and
                                                                                                                                      Equip. Rental &
                                                                                                                                      Leasing.
JESPERSEN AIRCRAFT SERVICES INC..  Corporation............          3        113      510.0        0.4     481219  $22 mn..........  Other Nonscheduled
                                                                                                                                      Air
                                                                                                                                      Transportation.
KATMAI AIR LLC...................  LLC....................          1        117      170.0        0.1     532411  $40 mn..........  Comm'l Air, Rail, &
                                                                                                                                      Water Transp.
                                                                                                                                      Equip. Rental and
                                                                                                                                      Leasing.
MUSTANG HIGH FLIGHT LLC..........  LLC....................          1        127      170.0        0.1     334511  1,250 emp.......  Search, Detect.,
                                                                                                                                      Nav., Guid.,
                                                                                                                                      Aero., & Naut.
                                                                                                                                      Systems & Inst.
                                                                                                                                      Mfg.
FLIGHT MANAGEMENT LLC............  LLC....................          2        161      340.0        0.2     561110  $11 mn..........  Office
                                                                                                                                      Administrative
                                                                                                                                      Services.
NEWHALEN LODGE INC...............  Corporation............          3        165      510.0        0.3     721199  $8 mn...........  All Other Traveler
                                                                                                                                      Accommodation.
4R AVIATION LLC..................  LLC....................          1        177      170.0        0.1     336411  1,500 emp.......  Aircraft
                                                                                                                                      Manufacturing.
RAINBOW KING LODGE INC...........  Corporation............          2        209      340.0        0.2     721199  $8 mn...........  All Other Traveler
                                                                                                                                      Accommodation.
DOYON AIRCRAFT LEASING LLC.......  LLC....................          1        250      170.0        0.1     532411  $40 mn..........  Comm'l Air, Rail, &
                                                                                                                                      Water Transp.
                                                                                                                                      Equip. Rental and
                                                                                                                                      Leasing.
KENMORE CREW LEASING INC TRUSTEE.  Corporation............          1        278      170.0        0.1     532490  $35 mn..........  Other Comm'l & Ind.
                                                                                                                                      Machinery and
                                                                                                                                      Equip. Rental &
                                                                                                                                      Leasing.
COMANCHE FIGHTERS LLC............  LLC....................          1        301      170.0        0.1     813930  $14.5 mn........  Labor Unions and
                                                                                                                                      Similar Labor
                                                                                                                                      Organizations.

[[Page 24935]]

 
BAY AIR INC......................  Corporation............          1        307      170.0        0.1     481111  1,500 emp.......  Scheduled Passenger
                                                                                                                                      Air
                                                                                                                                      Transportation.
COYOTE AIR LLC...................  LLC....................          2        310     $340.0        0.1     481211  1,500 emp.......  Nonscheduled
                                                                                                                                      Chartered
                                                                                                                                      Passenger Air
                                                                                                                                      Transp.
KINGFISHER AIR INC...............  Corporation............          1        366      170.0        0.0     481219  $22 mn..........  Other Nonscheduled
                                                                                                                                      Air
                                                                                                                                      Transportation.
ASSOCIATED LEASING LLC...........  LLC....................          1        500      170.0        0.0     532490  $35 mn..........  Other Comm'l & Ind.
                                                                                                                                      Machinery and
                                                                                                                                      Equip. Rental &
                                                                                                                                      Leasing.
TIKCHIK NARROWS LODGE INC........  Corporation............          3        720      510.0        0.1     721214  $8 mn...........  Recreational and
                                                                                                                                      Vacation Camps
                                                                                                                                      (except
                                                                                                                                      Campgrounds).
NORTHWEST SEAPLANES INC..........  Corporation............          3        750      510.0        0.1     481111  1,500 emp.......  Scheduled Passenger
                                                                                                                                      Air
                                                                                                                                      Transportation.
SNOW MOUNTAIN ENTERPRISES LLC....  LLC....................          1        750      170.0        0.0     532000  $8 mn...........  Rental and Leasing
                                                                                                                                      Services, N.F.S.
ISLAND WINGS AIR SERVICE LLC.....  LLC....................          2        956      340.0        0.0     481211  1,500 emp.......  Nonscheduled
                                                                                                                                      Chartered
                                                                                                                                      Passenger Air
                                                                                                                                      Transp.
TVPX AIRCRAFT SOLUTIONS INC        Corporation............          3      1,157      510.0        0.0     336310  1,000 emp.......  Motor Vehicle
 TRUSTEE.                                                                                                                             Gasoline Engine
                                                                                                                                      and Engine Parts
                                                                                                                                      Mfg.
SHELDON AIR SERVICE LLC..........  LLC....................          1      1,400      170.0        0.0     481219  $22 mn..........  Other Nonscheduled
                                                                                                                                      Air
                                                                                                                                      Transportation.
TALKEETNA AIR TAXI INC...........  Corporation............          1      1,635      170.0        0.0     481219  $22 mn..........  Other Nonscheduled
                                                                                                                                      Air
                                                                                                                                      Transportation.
NO SEE UM LODGE INC..............  Corporation............          3      2,036      510.0        0.0     721214  $8 mn...........  Recreational and
                                                                                                                                      Vacation Camps
                                                                                                                                      (except
                                                                                                                                      Campgrounds).
WARD AIR INC.....................  Corporation............          4      2,191      680.0        0.0     481219  $22 mn..........  Other Nonscheduled
                                                                                                                                      Air
                                                                                                                                      Transportation.
HISTORIC FLIGHT FOUNDATION.......  Corporation............          1      2,500      340.0        0.0     712110  $30 mn..........  Museums.
LAKE HAVASU SEAPLANES LLC........  LLC....................          1      2,500      170.0        0.0     611000  $8 mn...........  Educational
                                                                                                                                      Services, N.F.S.
RDJ BROTHERS TRUCKING INC........  Corporation............          1      2,500      170.0        0.0     236000  $39.5 mn........  Construction of
                                                                                                                                      buildings, N.F.S.
SEAWIND AVIATION INC.............  Corporation............          2      2,500      170.0        0.0     481211  1,500 emp.......  Nonscheduled
                                                                                                                                      Chartered
                                                                                                                                      Passenger Air
                                                                                                                                      Transp.
TIKCHIK AIRVENTURES LLC..........  LLC....................          1      2,500      170.0        0.0     481211  1,500 emp.......  Nonscheduled
                                                                                                                                      Chartered
                                                                                                                                      Passenger Air
                                                                                                                                      Transp.
WOLF TRAIL LODGE INC.............  Corporation............          1      2,500      170.0        0.0     721000  $8 mn...........  Accommodation,
                                                                                                                                      N.F.S.
ANDREW AIRWAYS INC...............  Corporation............          3      2,576      510.0        0.0     485999  $16.5 mn........  All Other Transit
                                                                                                                                      and Ground
                                                                                                                                      Passenger
                                                                                                                                      Transportation.
ALASKAS ENCHANTED LAKE LODGE INC.  Corporation............          2      2,729      340.0        0.0     721310  $12.5 mn........  Rooming & Boarding
                                                                                                                                      Houses,
                                                                                                                                      Dormitories, and
                                                                                                                                      Workers' Camps.
RAINBOW RIVER LODGE LLC..........  LLC....................          2      4,000      340.0        0.0     721214  $8 mn...........  Recreational and
                                                                                                                                      Vacation Camps
                                                                                                                                      (except
                                                                                                                                      Campgrounds).
K BAY AIR LLC....................  LLC....................          1      4,427      170.0        0.0     481219  $22 mn..........  Other Nonscheduled
                                                                                                                                      Air
                                                                                                                                      Transportation.
RAPIDS CAMP LODGE INC............  Corporation............          1      7,000      170.0        0.0     713990  $8 mn...........  All Other Amusement
                                                                                                                                      and Recreation
                                                                                                                                      Industries.
PROGRESSIVE PLASTICS INC.........  Corporation............          1      7,500      170.0        0.0     326199  750 emp.........  All Other Plastics
                                                                                                                                      Product
                                                                                                                                      Manufacturing.
BROWN HELICOPTER INC.............  Corporation............          1      9,000      170.0        0.0     336412  1,500 emp.......  Aircraft Engine and
                                                                                                                                      Engine Parts
                                                                                                                                      Manufacturing.
PERRYCOOK FLIGHT SERVICES LLC....  LLC....................          1     12,500      170.0        0.0     481211  1,500 emp.......  Nonscheduled
                                                                                                                                      Chartered
                                                                                                                                      Passenger Air
                                                                                                                                      Transp.
KOMRO INTERNATIONAL LLC..........  LLC....................          1     14,100      170.0        0.0     423820  125 emp.........  Farm & Garden
                                                                                                                                      Machinery & Equip.
                                                                                                                                      Merchant
                                                                                                                                      Wholesalers.
CONCRETE WORKS OF COLORADO INC...  Corporation............          1     16,190      170.0        0.0     238110  $16.5 mn........  Poured Concrete
                                                                                                                                      Foundation and
                                                                                                                                      Structure
                                                                                                                                      Contractors.
KENMORE AIR HARBOR LLC...........  LLC....................          9     51,500    1,530.0        0.0     481111  1,500 emp.......  Scheduled Passenger
                                                                                                                                      Air
                                                                                                                                      Transportation.
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................  .......................         80   $161,997     13,600  .........  .........  ................  ...................
    Mean.........................  .......................  .........      3,600        302        0.1  .........  ................  ...................
    Median.......................  .......................  .........        956        170        0.0  .........  ................  ...................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. The size standard is the maximum size for the NAICS industry considered by the Small Business Administration to be a small entity.
2. AD costs per airplane are 1 work-hour x $85 = $85 + $85 reporting costs for initial inspection, for a total of $170.
3. All percentage figures are rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent. All 0.0% figures represent values below 0.1%, but above 0%.

5. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    The FAA estimated that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would take 
about 1 work-hour per airplane at a labor rate of $85 per work-hour 
incorporate the inspections in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-2-5, 
Revision 1, into the existing maintenance records and comply with the 
initial inspection tasks of the program, plus $85 per airplane to 
report any corrosion found during the proposed initial inspections, for 
an estimated total cost of $170 per airplane.
    The estimated cost of this proposed AD, per small entity, is shown 
in the ``Cost'' column of Table 1 and cost impact is measured by cost 
as a percentage of revenues. As the table

[[Page 24936]]

shows, the mean cost impact is 0.1% of annual revenues,\4\ while the 
median cost impact of less than 0.1% shows no significant impact on any 
of the small entities. This impact did not vary with firm size; the 
largest cost impact was only 0.5%, which is still not considered 
significant. Therefore, the FAA finds that the proposed AD would not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ These revenue data come from online sources such as 
zoominfo.com, opencorporates.com, buzzfile.com, manta.com, 
allbiz.com, and lookupcompanyrevenue.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Significant Alternatives Considered

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 64-09-03, Amendment 718 (29 FR 
5390, April 22, 1964); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier 
Inc. and de Havilland Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2022-0190; Project 
Identifier 2019-CE-048-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive 
(AD) by June 9, 2023.

 (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 64-09-03, Amendment 718 (29 FR 5390, April 
22, 1964).

 (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Viking Air Limited (type certificate 
previously held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Model 
DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes, all serial 
numbers, certificated in any category.

 (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2000, Airframe.

 (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness 
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another 
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation 
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as corrosion-
related degradation in aging aircraft. The FAA is issuing this AD to 
detect and address corrosion, which could lead to structural failure 
with consequent loss of control of the airplane.

 (f) Compliance

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

 (g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, 
incorporate into the existing maintenance records required by 14 CFR 
91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2), as applicable for your airplane, the 
actions and associated thresholds and intervals, including life 
limits, specified in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking DHC-2 Beaver 
Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1-2-5, 
Revision 1, dated January 10, 2019 (Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1). 
Do each initial task within 6 months after the effective date of 
this AD or at the threshold for each applicable task specified in 
Part 3 of Viking Product Support Manual PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, 
whichever occurs later. Where Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, 
specifies contacting Viking for instructions on forward and rear fin 
attachment bolt replacement, inspection, and installation, and for a 
disposition regarding attachment bolts, this AD requires contacting 
the FAA, Transport Canada, or Viking's Transport Canada Design 
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval 
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g): Viking DHC-2 Beaver Service Bulletin 
V2/0011, Revision NC, dated November 28, 2019, contains additional 
information related to this AD.
    (2) After the action required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD has 
been done, no alternative actions and associated thresholds and 
intervals, including life limits, are allowed unless they are 
approved as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

 (h) Reporting

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

 (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to 
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found 
in Sec.  39.19. In accordance with Sec.  39.19, send your request to 
your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, 
as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of 
the New York ACO Branch, mail it to ATTN: Program Manager, 
Continuing Operational Safety, at the address identified in 
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD or email to: [email protected]. If 
mailing information, also submit information by email.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate 
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding 
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be 
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD 
if it is approved specifically for this AD by the Manager, New York 
ACO Branch, FAA.

 (j) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to the MCAI from Transport Canada, AD CF-2019-25, 
dated July 5, 2019, for related information. This Transport Canada 
AD may be found in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. 
FAA-2022-0190.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact James Delisio, 
Continued Operational Safety Program Manager, FAA, New York ACO 
Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 
(516) 228-7321; email: [email protected].
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not 
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in 
paragraphs (k)(3) and (4) of this AD.

 (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the 
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed 
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do 
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Viking DHC-2 Beaver Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion 
Control Manual,

[[Page 24937]]

PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, dated January 10, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way, Sidney, 
British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone: (800) 663-8444; fax: (250) 
656-0673; email: [email protected]; website: 
vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, 
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability 
of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated 
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at 
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on April 13, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft 
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-08551 Filed 4-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P