Vulcanair AD Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Daniel Leach

Final Draft--05-21-2013

Introduction and Purpose of This Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the 

rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the 

businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve this 

principle, 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 seriously considered.” The 

RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, 

the agency must prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) as described in the RFA.

Section 603(a) of the RFA requires that each initial regulatory flexibility analysis contain:

(1) a description of the reasons 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; and

(5) to the extent practicable, an identification of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, 

overlap or conflict with the proposed rule.

(6) Each IRFA shall also contain a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed 

rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statues and which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
2

1. A Description of the Reasons Action by the Agency Is Being Considered

This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by EASA and would supersede existing AD 2008-24-11. The existing AD established

safe limits for the wing structure of Vulcanair P.68 Series airplanes and requires repetitive

inspection and repair of the wing and stabilator structures when the airplanes reach safe life 

limits. Operation beyond existing conservative safe limits (with inspections and repair) is 

allowed pending establishment of final safe limits and a terminating action.

The proposed AD significantly increases wing structure life limits (in a few cases requiring 

kit modification of the wing structure), but establishes a terminating action requiring replacement 

of the wing structure and wing fuselage attachments and bolts when new established safe limits 

are reached. Prior to the wing structure safe life limit being reached, the proposed AD also 

requires special inspections of the wing structure with time limits, since new, of 6,000, 12,000, 

and 18,000 flight hours.

1

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Title 49 of the U.S. 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 FAA’s authority.

We are 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 the 

airplanes identified in this AD.

3. A Description of and an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to which the 

Proposed Rule Will Apply

This proposed rule would affect 67 U.S.-registered airplanes, of which 40 are owned by

corporations, 8 by individuals, 2 by the Federal Government, and 17 by state governments. Of 

the 48 airplanes held by private sector parties, one financing firm owns two of them, and two 

operators each own two of them. The remaining 36 airplanes are owned by 36 corporations and 

 

1 After the first special inspection subsequent inspections must be every 6000 flight hours thereafter.
3

individuals. The FAA believes that all, or nearly all, of these private sector owners are privately

held small firms, for which we cannot obtain financial records. We conclude that the proposed 

rule would affect a substantial number of small entities.

4. Reporting, Record Keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule

Small entities will incur no new reporting and record-keeping requirements as a result of this 

rule. 

The additional requirements of the proposed AD compared to the existing AD are the special 

wing structure inspections at 6,000, 12,000, and 18,000 flight hours, the terminating action to 

replace the wing structure when the wing structure safe limit is reached, and, for airplanes with 

serial numbers 1- 256 for which a spar crack was found under previous Vulcanair SB65,

replacement of the four main spar lower cap angles using Vulcanair Kit SB162. The costs of the 

required actions provided in the proposed AD are as follows:

Requirement

WorkhoursLabor 

Cost

Cost of 

Materials

Total 

Cost

Special inspections 60 $ 5,100 

Wing structure replacement 300 $ 25,500 $443,406 $468,906 

Replacement of lower spar

cap angles with kit SB162 

(S/N 1-256) 120 $ 10,200 $ 2,595 $ 12,795 

Notes: 1. Labor cost per hour is $85. 2. The cost of crack repair is not provided in the proposed AD.

The requirement to replace the wing structure, at considerable cost, occurs when the airplanes are 

old and have low value, often less than the cost of wing structure replacement. Therefore, in 

many cases airplane retirement is the least cost alternative, in which case the effective cost of the 

requirement is the loss in airplane value net of salvage value. The requirement to replace the 

lower spar cap angles applies to at most ten U.S.-registered airplanes and only if a front spar 

crack was previously found under SB No. 65. The expected present value cost of this 

requirement is thus minimal. The requirement for special inspections at 6,000, 12,000, and 

18,000 flight hours applies to all AD-affected airplanes. 
4

Economic Impact on Small Entities

Since we have no financial information of the privately held firms that constitute most of the 

operators of the affected airplanes, we assess the economic impact of the proposed rule using 

airplane values. As the Vulcanair P.68 airplanes are not listed in the Aircraft Bluebook Price 

Digest, we undertook an internet search and found that the resale value of older P.68 airplanes, 

manufactured between 1975 and 1984 ranged from about $80,000 to $300,000. Many of these 

airplanes will be subject to the special inspection at 6,000 miles or even the special inspection at 

12,000 miles. Using a significant economic impact criterion of 2% of airplane value, for 

operators of many of these airplanes there is a significant economic impact based on just one 

$5,100 inspection. Taking into account the present value cost of 2-3 possible future inspections

and possible repair, as well as the present value cost of forced early retirement, there is a 

significant economic impact on most if not all of these operators.

We therefore conclude that this proposed rule will have a significant impact on a substantial 

number of firms.

5. Duplicative, Overlapping or Conflicting Federal Rules

The FAA is unaware of any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this

proposed rule.

6. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

Because of an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on the airplanes identified in this 

proposed AD, there is no feasible significant alternative to requiring the actions of this proposed 

AD. The FAA invites public comment on this determination.