Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67629 

auxiliary power unit (APU), which caused 

fuel leakage in the APU compartment. The 

FAA is issuing this AD to address the 

cracked fuel control unit housing assemblies. 

The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could 

result in an uncommanded APU in-flight 

shutdown, or fire in the APU compartment, 

which could result in damage to the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Requirements 

Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this 

AD: Comply with all required actions and 

compliance times specified in, and in 

accordance with, European Union Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023–0057, dated 

March 16, 2023 (EASA AD 2023–0057). 

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2023–0057 

(1) Where EASA AD 2023–0057 refers to its 

effective date; this AD requires using the 

effective date of this AD. 

(2) This AD does not adopt the ‘‘Remarks’’ 

section of EASA AD 2023–0057. 

(3) Where EASA AD 2023–0057 defines 

‘‘the SB,’’ for this AD, operators must use 

Honeywell Service Bulletin GTCP331–49– 

7954, dated December 19, 2007. 

(i) Additional AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or 

responsible Flight Standards Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the International Validation Branch, send 

it to the attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be 

emailed to: 9-AVS-AIR-730-AMOC@faa.gov. 

Before using any approved AMOC, notify 

your appropriate principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the responsible Flight Standards Office. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain instructions 

from a manufacturer, the instructions must 

be accomplished using a method approved 

by the Manager, International Validation 

Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS’s 

EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). 

If approved by the DOA, the approval must 

include the DOA-authorized signature. 

(3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except 

as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if 

any service information contains procedures 

or tests that are identified as RC, those 

procedures and tests must be done to comply 

with this AD; any procedures or tests that are 

not identified as RC are recommended. Those 

procedures and tests that are not identified 

as RC may be deviated from using accepted 

methods in accordance with the operator’s 

maintenance or inspection program without 

obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided 

the procedures and tests identified as RC can 

be done and the airplane can be put back in 

an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or 

changes to procedures or tests identified as 

RC require approval of an AMOC. 

(j) Additional Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Timothy Dowling, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 

410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 206– 

231–3667; email Timothy.P.Dowling@faa.gov. 

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) AD 2023–0057, dated March 16, 

2023. 

(ii) Honeywell Service Bulletin GTCP331– 

49–7954, dated December 19, 2007. 

(3) For EASA AD 2023–0057, contact 

EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 

Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 

000; email ADs@easa.europa.eu; website 

easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA AD 

on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu. 

(4) For Honeywell service information 

identified in this AD, contact Honeywell 

International, Inc., 111 South 34th Street, 

Phoenix, AZ 85034; phone: (800) 601–3099; 

fax: (602) 365–5577; website: 

myaerospace.honeywell.com/wps/portal. 

(5) You may view this material at the FAA, 

Airworthiness Products Section, Operational 

Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des 

Moines, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

206–231–3195. 

(6) You may view this material that is 

incorporated by reference at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the availability 

of this material at NARA, email 

fr.inspection@nara.gov, or go to: 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued on September 15, 2023. 

Victor Wicklund, 

Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–21635 Filed 9–29–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2022–0190; Project 

Identifier 2019–CE–048–AD; Amendment 

39–22556; AD 2023–19–06] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air 

Limited (Type Certificate Previously 

Held by Bombardier Inc. and de 

Havilland Inc.) Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 64–09–03, 

which applied to all de Havilland (type 

certificate now held by Viking Air 

Limited (Viking)) Model DHC–2 

‘‘Beaver’’ airplanes. AD 64–09–03 

required inspecting the aileron mass 

balance weight arms for cracks and 

corrosion and replacing any damaged 

part. Since the FAA issued AD 64–09– 

03, Transport Canada superseded its 

mandatory continuing airworthiness 

information (MCAI) to correct an unsafe 

condition on these products. This AD 

requires incorporating into the existing 

maintenance records for your airplane 

the actions and associated thresholds 

and intervals, including life limits, 

specified in a supplemental inspection 

and corrosion control manual for Model 

DHC–2 airplanes. This AD also requires 

completing all of the initial tasks 

identified in this manual and reporting 

certain corrosion findings to Viking. The 

actions in this supplemental inspection 

and corrosion control manual include 

the inspection of the aileron balance 

weight arms required by AD 64–09–03. 

The FAA is issuing this AD to address 

the unsafe condition on these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective November 6, 

2023. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of November 6, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: 

AD Docket: You may examine the AD 

docket at regulations.gov under Docket 

No. FAA–2022–0190; or in person at 

Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this final rule, the MCAI, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The address for Docket 

Operations is U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
67630 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

Material Incorporated by Reference: 

• For service information identified 

in this final rule, contact Viking Air 

Limited Technical Support, 1959 de 

Havilland Way, Sidney, British 

Columbia, Canada V8L 5V5; phone: 

(800) 663–8444; fax: (250) 656–0673; 

email: technical.support@vikingair.com; 

website: vikingair.com/support/servicebulletins. 

• You may view this service 

information at the FAA, Airworthiness 

Products Section, Operational Safety 

Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 

64106. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call (817) 222–5110. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Delisio, Continued Operational 

Safety Program Manager, FAA, 1600 

Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, 

NY 11590; phone: (516) 228–7321; 

email: 9-avs-nyaco-cos@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to supersede AD 

64–09–03, Amendment 718 (29 FR 

5390, April 22, 1964) (AD 64–09–03). 

AD 64–09–03 applied to all de 

Havilland (type certificate now held by 

Viking Air Limited) Model DHC–2 

‘‘Beaver’’ airplanes. AD 64–09–03 

required repetitively inspecting the 

aileron mass balance weight arms for 

cracks and corrosion and replacing any 

damaged part. AD 64–09–03 resulted 

from cracks and corrosion found on 

aileron mass balance weight arm part 

numbers (P/Ns) C2WA151, C2WA152, 

C2WA127, and C2WA128. The FAA 

issued AD 64–09–03 to address 

corrosion-related degradation of the 

aileron mass balance weight arms 

which, if not addressed, could lead to 

structural failure with consequent loss 

of control of the airplane. 

The NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on February 8, 2022 (87 FR 

7065); corrected February 18, 2022 (87 

FR 9274). The NPRM was prompted by 

AD CF–2019–25, dated July 19, 2019 

(referred to after this as the MCAI), 

issued by Transport Canada, which is 

the aviation authority for Canada. The 

MCAI states that it supersedes prior 

Transport Canada ADs related to a 

supplementary inspection and corrosion 

control program for aging airplanes, 

which identifies specific locations of an 

airplane that must be inspected to 

ensure corrosion-related degradation 

does not result in an unsafe condition. 

The MCAI continues to require the tasks 

included in the initial issue of Viking, 

DHC–2 Beaver Supplemental Inspection 

and Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1– 

2–5, dated June 21, 2017, and requires 

additional inspections for components 

of airframe systems other than flight 

controls, which are included in Viking 

DHC–2 Beaver Supplemental Inspection 

and Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1– 

2–5, Revision 1, dated January 10, 2019 

(Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1). 

Corrosion-related degradation, if not 

addressed, could lead to structural 

failure with consequent loss of control 

of the airplane. 

You may examine the MCAI in the 

AD docket at regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FAA–2022–0190. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

require establishing a corrosion 

prevention and control program 

approved by the FAA. In the NPRM, the 

FAA also proposed to require 

completing all of the initial tasks 

identified in the program and reporting 

corrosion findings to Viking. 

The FAA issued a supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) 

to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede 

AD 64–09–03. The SNPRM published in 

the Federal Register on April 25, 2023 

(88 FR 24927). The SNPRM was 

prompted by the FAA’s decision to 

revise the proposed actions specified in 

the NPRM and to reopen the comment 

period to allow the public the chance to 

comment on whether the proposed AD 

would have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In the SNPRM, the FAA 

proposed to require incorporating into 

the existing maintenance records for 

your airplane the actions and associated 

thresholds and intervals, including life 

limits, specified in Parts 2 and 3 of 

Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, 

completing all the initial tasks 

identified in Viking PSM 1–2–5, 

Revision 1, and reporting to Viking any 

Level 2 or Level 3 corrosion findings. 

The FAA is issuing this AD to address 

the unsafe condition on these products. 

Discussion of Final Airworthiness 

Directive 

Comments 

The FAA received comments from 

three individuals. The following 

presents the comments received on the 

SNPRM and the FAA’s response to each 

comment. 

Request To Withdraw NPRM and 

SNPRM 

One individual commenter requested 

that the FAA reconsider issuing the 

proposed AD and a second individual 

commenter requested that the FAA 

withdraw the proposed rulemaking. The 

first commenter noted that during an 

annual inspection, a licensed Airframe 

and Powerplant (A&P) mechanic can 

determine if an airplane has been 

properly maintained and if corrosion is 

present. This commenter indicated that, 

by issuing the proposed AD, the FAA 

would force many operators and pilots 

to give up their airplanes due to 

exorbitant costs. This commenter stated 

that because one or two airplanes were 

found with extensive corrosion, all 

Model DHC–2 airplanes should not be 

placed in the same category and that 

‘‘the Beaver’’ is one of the finest built 

airplanes and should be respected as 

such. 

The second individual commenter 

stated that the FAA must stop broad 

brushing all airplanes of a certain build 

as the same. The commenter noted that 

a Model DHC–2 ‘‘Beaver’’ built in 1948 

is not the same as one built in 1967 and 

that the lifetime use of service and 

environmental conditions determine an 

airplane’s risk factors. The commenter 

explained that many Beavers have 

thousands of pages of flight records 

spanning over 70 years that allow 

owners and maintainers to subjectively 

evaluate an airplane’s condition and 

operating environments; therefore, 

based on the points above, the FAA 

should immediately withdraw the 

proposed rulemaking because it lacks 

merit. 

The FAA acknowledges the 

commenters’ concerns regarding the 

impact this final rule will have on 

operators and pilots. As noted by the 

first commenter, Model DHC–2 

airplanes are currently required to 

perform annual and 100-hour 

inspections, including inspections for 

corrosion, that are required by the 

Federal Aviation Regulations. The FAA 

does not agree that these current 

regulations require the same inspections 

as those proposed in the SNPRM. The 

inspections proposed in the SNPRM are 

focused on certain areas of the airplane 

and are more detailed than those 

covered in the required annual or 100- 

hour inspections. The inspections 

required by this AD are part of a 

supplemental inspection and corrosion 

prevention program that is included in 

Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1–2–5, 

Revision 1. These inspection types and 

intervals address locations or parts that 

are not currently required to be 

inspected as part of annual or 100-hour 

inspections in existing regulations. 

These new inspections and intervals are 

needed to detect and address corrosion, 

which could lead to structural failure 

with consequent loss of control of the 

airplane. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67631 

The FAA also acknowledges the first 

commenter’s concern regarding the 

‘‘exorbitant cost’’ of complying with the 

requirements of this AD that could 

result in operators and pilots having to 

give up their airplanes. Under 14 CFR 

39.1, issuance of an AD is based on the 

finding that an unsafe condition exists 

or is likely to develop in aircraft of a 

particular type design. An aging 

airplane requires more attention during 

maintenance procedures and, at times, 

more frequent inspections of structural 

components to detect damage due to 

environmental deterioration, accidental 

damage, and fatigue. The unsafe 

condition addressed in this final rule 

includes undetected corrosion, which 

could lead to structural failure and 

consequent loss of control of the 

airplane. Inspections and repairs are 

therefore necessary to detect and correct 

such corrosion before it leads to 

structural failure. 

In response to both commenters’ 

statements that all Model DHC–2 

airplanes should not be placed in the 

same category, the FAA has determined 

that an unsafe condition exists or is 

likely to exist or develop in other 

products of the same type design. In this 

case, the FAA independently reviewed 

the MCAI and related service 

information and determined an unsafe 

condition exists and an AD is needed to 

address that unsafe condition. Further, 

it is within the FAA’s authority and 

responsibility to issue ADs to require 

actions to address unsafe conditions 

that are not otherwise being addressed 

(or are not addressed adequately) by 

routine maintenance procedures. 

The FAA has not changed this AD 

regarding this issue. 

Request for Clarification Regarding 

Conflicting AD Requirements for the 

Affected Models 

One individual commenter requested 

clarification regarding what operators 

should do if there are conflicts between 

the requirements specified in the 

SNPRM and the requirements of 

existing ADs for the affected airplanes. 

The commenter noted that AD 2008–11– 

11, Amendment 39–15533 (73 FR 

34611, June 18, 2008) (AD 2008–11–11) 

specifies a fluorescent penetrant 

inspection for cracks in the front spar 

center section web of the tailplane, 

while task C55–10–02 in Viking PSM 1– 

2–5, Revision 1, allows using a 

fluorescent penetrant or an eddy current 

inspection, which seems contradictory. 

The FAA acknowledges the 

commenter’s concern. The FAA has 

reviewed all potentially related ADs 

against the proposed requirements in 

the SNPRM and determined that other 

than AD 64–09–03, no other ADs need 

to be superseded or rescinded. Any 

other ADs involving inspections for 

corrosion on the affected airplanes 

require either inspections for different 

parts or locations on an airplane or the 

inspections are not as in-depth or 

repetitive; therefore, they do not overlap 

with the inspections required by this 

AD. This includes the requirements of 

AD 2008–11–11, which requires 

inspecting a different airplane part than 

the part specified in task C55–10–02 of 

Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1. 

The FAA has not changed this AD 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Revise Requirements Based 

on Airplane Usage Conditions 

One individual commenter requested 

that the SNPRM be revised to provide 

different requirements based on how an 

airplane is used. The commenter 

suggested that instead of using a broad 

approach and including all Model DHC– 

2 airplanes, the FAA should use a 

logical evaluation process and consider 

the following parameters to determine if 

an airplane’s airworthiness might be 

compromised due to corrosion: 

operating environment (exposure to 

saltwater); commercial or private use; 

stress on the airframe due to repetitive 

flights with heavy loads; total flight 

hours on the airframe; airplane history 

(has it been partially or completely 

rebuilt); and maintenance history. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

commenter’s request to change the 

SNPRM based on different airplane 

operational usage. There is no current 

requirement to track the hours spent 

flying in different conditions or types of 

water. Additionally, operators may not 

know an airplane’s entire flight or 

maintenance history. Without this 

detailed knowledge of each airplane, it 

would be impossible for the FAA to 

develop a special set of inspections 

based on airplane usage conditions. 

However, operators may submit a 

proposal for revised requirements by 

requesting an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) using the 

procedures specified in paragraph (i) of 

this AD. 

The FAA has not changed this AD 

regarding this issue. 

Request To Revise Costs of Compliance 

One individual commenter requested 

that the FAA revise the labor rate in the 

Costs of Compliance section of the 

SNPRM. The commenter noted that the 

FAA’s estimate of $85 per hour is not 

accurate and that the current labor rate 

for an experienced DHC–2/3 airplane 

mechanic is greater than $110 per hour, 

depending on where in the United 

States the work is being performed. The 

commenter also mentioned that public 

comments on the NPRM that is related 

to the SNPRM stated that DHC–2 

mechanic rates are $110 to $150 per 

hour, depending on the geographic 

regions where the work is being 

performed. The commenter added that 

the proposed costs do not consider the 

current shortage of qualified mechanics 

able to do the inspections. 

The FAA agrees that the labor rate of 

$85 per work-hour is dated but 

disagrees with the commenter’s estimate 

of $110 to $150 per hour. The FAA 

notes that the current wage rate for 

aviation mechanics as provided by the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, found at 

www.bls.gov/oes/current/ 

oes493011.htm, after accounting for 

fringe benefits that are valued at roughly 

50% of the nominal wage, is lower than 

the estimated fully burdened labor rate 

(a labor rate with fringe benefits 

included) of $85 per work-hour; 

therefore, the FAA is unable to justify 

increasing the labor rate from $85 per 

work-hour. The FAA continues to use 

the higher $85 per work-hour figure in 

order to provide a conservative estimate 

of the costs. 

Regarding the commenter’s statement 

that the wage rate for DHC–2 mechanics 

varies geographically, the commenter 

did not provide any documentation or 

references to support this statement. 

Furthermore, unless the distribution of 

DHC–2 airplanes also varies along the 

same geography, using an average rate 

captures the average effect, including 

any higher wages; therefore, the FAA 

has not added a geographical 

adjustment into its assessment. 

The FAA acknowledges the 

commenter’s concerns regarding labor 

shortages, although this does not affect 

the cost of this final rule. 

The FAA has not changed this AD 

regarding this issue. 

Conclusion 

These products have been approved 

by the aviation authority of another 

country and are approved for operation 

in the United States. Pursuant to the 

FAA’s bilateral agreement with this 

State of Design Authority, it has notified 

the FAA of the unsafe condition 

described in the MCAI referenced 

above. The FAA reviewed the relevant 

data, considered the comments 

received, and determined that air safety 

requires adopting this AD as proposed. 

Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD 

to address the unsafe condition on these 

products. Except for minor editorial 

changes, this AD is adopted as proposed 

in the SNPRM. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
67632 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

ADs Mandating Airworthiness 

Limitations (ALS) 

The FAA has previously mandated 

airworthiness limitations by issuing 

ADs that require revising the ALS of the 

existing maintenance manual or 

instructions for continued airworthiness 

to incorporate new or revised 

inspections. This AD, however, requires 

establishing and incorporating new 

inspections into the existing 

maintenance records required by 14 

CFR 91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2) for 

your airplane. The FAA does not intend 

this as a substantive change. Requiring 

incorporation of the new ALS 

requirements into the existing 

maintenance records, rather than 

requiring individual repetitive 

inspections and replacements, allows 

operators to record AD compliance once 

after updating the existing maintenance 

records, rather than recording 

compliance after every inspection and 

part replacement. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

The FAA reviewed Viking PSM 1–2– 

5, Revision 1, which specifies 

procedures for inspecting locations of 

the airplane that are particularly 

susceptible to corrosion-related 

degradation and includes repetitive 

inspection intervals, defines the 

different levels of corrosion, and 

provides corrective action if corrosion is 

found. 

This service information is reasonably 

available because the interested parties 

have access to it through their normal 

course of business or by the means 

identified in ADDRESSES. 

Other Related Service Information 

The FAA reviewed Viking DHC–2 

Beaver Service Bulletin V2/0011, 

Revision NC, dated November 28, 2019. 

This service information provides a list 

of new inspection tasks that have been 

added to the DHC–2 supplementary 

inspection and corrosion control 

program, Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1. 

Impact on Intrastate Aviation in Alaska 

In light of the heavy reliance on 

aviation for intrastate transportation in 

Alaska, the FAA has fully considered 

the effects of this final rule (including 

costs to be borne by affected operators) 

from the earliest possible stages of AD 

development. As previously stated, 14 

CFR part 39 requires operators to correct 

an unsafe condition identified on an 

airplane to ensure operation of that 

airplane in an airworthy condition. The 

FAA has determined that the need to 

correct corrosion-related degradation in 

aging aircraft, which could lead to 

structural failure with consequent loss 

of control of the airplane, outweighs any 

impact on aviation in Alaska. 

Costs of Compliance 

The FAA estimates that this AD 

affects 409 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

The FAA also estimates that it will take 

about 1 work-hour per airplane at a 

labor rate of $85 per work-hour to revise 

the existing maintenance records. 

Based on these figures, the FAA 

estimates the cost of this AD on U.S. 

operators to be $34,765 or $85 per 

airplane. 

The FAA estimates it will take about 

1 work-hour to report any Level 2 

corrosion found during the initial or 

subsequent inspections or any Level 3 

corrosion found during the initial or 

subsequent inspections, for an estimated 

cost of $85 per airplane. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

A federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, nor shall a person be subject 

to a penalty for failure to comply with 

a collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB Control Number. The OMB 

Control Number for this information 

collection is 2120–0056. Public 

reporting for this collection of 

information is estimated to take 

approximately 1 hour per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

All responses to this collection of 

information are mandatory. Send 

comments regarding this burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, to: 

Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 10101 Hillwood 

Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177–1524. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 

44701: General requirements. Under 

that section, Congress charges the FAA 

with promoting safe flight of civil 

aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 

regulations for practices, methods, and 

procedures the Administrator finds 

necessary for safety in air commerce. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

that authority because it addresses an 

unsafe condition that is likely to exist or 

develop on products identified in this 

rulemaking action. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, Public Law 96–354, 94 Stat. 1164 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612) (RFA) establishes as 

a principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. 

To achieve this principle, agencies are 

required to solicit and consider flexible 

regulatory proposals and to explain the 

rationale for their actions to assure that 

such proposals are given serious 

consideration. The RFA covers a widerange of small entities, including small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations, 

and small governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

The FAA published an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

for this rule to aid the public in 

commenting on the potential impacts to 

small entities. The FAA considered the 

public comments in developing the final 

rule and this Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). A FRFA 

must contain the following: 

(1) A statement of the need for, and 

objectives of, the rule; 

(2) A statement of the significant 

issues raised by the public comments in 

response to the IRFA, a statement of the 

assessment of the agency of such issues, 

and a statement of any changes made in 

the proposed rule as a result of such 

comments; 

(3) The response of the agency to any 

comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) in response to the 

proposed rule, and a detailed statement 

of any change made to the proposed rule 

in the final rule as a result of the 

comments; 

(4) A description of and an estimate 

of the number of small entities to which 

the rule will apply or an explanation of 

why no such estimate is available; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67633 

1Small Business Administration (SBA). 2022. 

Table of Size Standards. Effective July 14, 2022. 

https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-sizestandards. 

2Two 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. 

3The sample was selected by shuffling the order 

of the list of 409 DHC–2 airplanes in the FAA 

Registry and going down the randomized list. If 

revenue and employee count data were available, it 

was included in the sample; otherwise, it was 

excluded. This process was repeated until 50 firms, 

for which revenue and employee data were 

available, had been added to the sample. The 

shuffling was accomplished by giving each entry in 

the registry an index value between 0 and 1 using 

Excel’s RAND function. The entries were then 

sorted by that index value to randomize their order. 

(5) A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of 

the classes of small entities which will 

be subject to the requirement and the 

type of professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; and 

(6) A description of the steps the 

agency has taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities consistent with the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes, 

including a statement of the factual, 

policy, and legal reasons for selecting 

the alternative adopted in the final rule 

and why each of the other significant 

alternatives to the rule considered by 

the agency which affect the impact on 

small entities was rejected. 

1. Need for and Objectives of the Rule 

The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 

64–09–03, which applied to all de 

Havilland (type certificate now held by 

Viking) Model DHC–2 ‘‘Beaver’’ 

airplanes, because after the FAA issued 

AD 64–09–03, Transport Canada 

superseded its MCAI to identify specific 

locations of an airplane that must be 

inspected to ensure corrosion-related 

degradation does not result in an unsafe 

condition. This final rule requires 

incorporating into the existing 

maintenance records for your airplane 

the actions and associated thresholds 

and intervals, including life limits, 

specified in a supplemental inspection 

and corrosion control manual for Model 

DHC–2 airplanes. This final rule also 

requires completing all the initial tasks 

identified in this manual and reporting 

certain corrosion findings to Viking. The 

actions in this supplemental inspection 

and corrosion control manual include 

the inspection of the aileron balance 

weight arms required by AD 64–09–03. 

2. Significant Issues Raised in Public 

Comments 

The FAA received comments related 

to costs from three individual 

commenters. The following presents the 

significant issues in the comments 

received on the SNPRM and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Request To Revise Requirements Based 

on Airplane Usage Conditions 

Two commenters requested that the 

SNPRM be revised to have different 

requirements based on how the airplane 

is used, including but not limited to 

corrosion level, operating environment 

(e.g., near salt water), commercial or 

private use, and airplane history. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

commenters’ requests to change the 

SNPRM based on airplane operational 

usage. There is no current requirement 

to track the hours spent flying in 

different conditions or types of water. 

Additionally, operators may not know 

an airplane’s entire flight or 

maintenance history. Without this 

detailed knowledge of each airplane, it 

would be impossible for the FAA to 

develop a special set of inspections 

based on airplane usage conditions. 

However, operators may submit a 

proposal for revised requirements by 

requesting an AMOC using the 

procedures specified in paragraph (i) of 

this AD. The FAA has not changed this 

AD regarding this issue. 

Request To Revise Costs of Compliance: 

Labor Rate 

One commenter requested that the 

FAA revise the labor rate in the Costs of 

Compliance section of the SNPRM. The 

commenter noted that current labor 

rates are anywhere from $110 to $150 

per hour and added that the proposed 

costs do not consider the current 

shortage of qualified mechanics able to 

do the inspections. 

The FAA agrees that the labor rate of 

$85 per work-hour provided in the 

SNPRM is dated but disagrees with the 

provided estimate of $110 to $150 per 

hour provided by the commenter. The 

FAA notes that the current wage rate for 

aviation mechanics as provided by the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, found at 

www.bls.gov/oes/current/ 

oes493011.htm, after accounting for 

fringe benefits that are valued at roughly 

50% of the nominal wage, is lower than 

the estimated fully burdened labor rate 

(a labor rate with fringe benefits 

included) of $85 per work-hour. 

Therefore, the FAA is unable to justify 

increasing the labor rate from $85 per 

work-hour. The FAA continues to use 

the higher $85 per work-hour figure in 

order to provide a conservative estimate 

of the costs. 

The commenter also indicated that 

the wage rate for DHC–2 mechanics 

varies geographically but did not 

provide any documentation or 

references to support this statement. 

Furthermore, unless the distribution of 

DHC–2 airplanes also varies along the 

same geography, using an average rate 

captures the average effect, including 

any higher wages; therefore, the FAA 

has not added a geographical 

adjustment into its assessment. 

3. Response to SBA Comments 

The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 

the SBA did not file any comments in 

response to the SNPRM. Thus, the FAA 

did not make any changes to this final 

rule. 

4. Small Entities to Which the Rule Will 

Apply 

The FAA used the definition of small 

entities in the RFA for this analysis. The 

RFA defines small entities as small 

businesses, small governmental 

jurisdictions, or small organizations. In 

5 U.S.C. 601(3), the RFA defines ‘‘small 

business’’ to have the same meaning as 

‘‘small business concern’’ under section 

3 of the Small Business Act. The Small 

Business Act authorizes the SBA to 

define ‘‘small business’’ by issuing 

regulations. 

SBA (2022) has established size 

standards for various types of economic 

activities, or industries, under the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS).1 These size standards 

generally define small businesses based 

on the number of employees or annual 

receipts. 

The FAA Civil Aircraft Registry 

shows 409 Model DHC–2 Mk. I, DHC– 

2 Mk. II, and DHC–2 Mk. III airplanes 

that will be affected by this AD. These 

409 airplanes are registered to 235 

private businesses, 76 individuals, and 

3 government agencies. The 76 

individuals and 3 government agencies 

are excluded from this analysis as the 

RFA does not apply to individuals and 

the 3 government agencies are not small 

entities as defined by the RFA.2

Three hundred nineteen (319) 

airplanes are owned and operated by 

235 private entities. A sample of 50 

private businesses was randomly 

selected for the analysis.3 Of the 50 

sampled entities, 45 were found to be 

small. The results of the cost impact 

analysis for these 45 small entities are 

shown in Table 1 and will be discussed 

in the following section. 

As can be seen, the impacts range 

from nearly 0%, to a maximum of 0.5%. 

The average impact is 0.1%, and the 

median impact rounds to 0.0%. As 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
67634 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

such, the FAA has determined that this rule will not significantly impact a 

substantial number of small entities. 

TABLE 1—COST IMPACT ON SMALL ENTITIES

Operator FAA Registry 

type 

DHC–2 

A/C 

Revenues 

($1,000) Cost 

Cost/ 

revenue (%) 

NAICS 

code 

Size 

standard NAICS industry 

ALASKAS FISHING UNLIMITED 

INC.

Non-Citizen 

Corp.

1 79 $170.0 0.2 721214 $8 mn ......... Recreational and Vacation 

Camps (except Campgrounds). 

DOUGLAS AVIATION LTD ........ Corporation ...... 2 90 340.0 0.4 541990 $17 mn ....... All Other Professional, Scientific 

and Technical Services. 

NORTHSTAR HOLDINGS LLC LLC .................. 3 110 510.0 0.5 551112 $40 mn ....... Offices of Other Holding Companies. 

RHK OF KANSAS ...................... Corporation ...... 1 110 170.0 0.2 541110 $13.5 mn .... Offices of Lawyers. 

SUMMIT LEASING LLC ............ LLC .................. 1 110 170.0 0.2 532490 $35 mn ....... Other Comm’l & Ind. Machinery 

and Equip. Rental & Leasing. 

JESPERSEN AIRCRAFT SERVICES INC.Corporation ...... 3 113 510.0 0.4 481219 $22 mn ....... Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation. 

KATMAI AIR LLC ....................... LLC .................. 1 117 170.0 0.1 532411 $40 mn ....... Comm’l Air, Rail, & Water 

Transp. Equip. Rental and 

Leasing. 

MUSTANG HIGH FLIGHT LLC LLC .................. 1 127 170.0 0.1 334511 1250 emp ... Search, Detect., Nav., Guid., 

Aero., & Naut. Systems & 

Inst. Mfg. 

FLIGHT MANAGEMENT LLC .... LLC .................. 2 161 340.0 0.2 561110 $11 mn ....... Office Administrative Services. 

NEWHALEN LODGE INC .......... Corporation ...... 3 165 510.0 0.3 721199 $8 mn ......... All Other Traveler Accommodation. 

4R AVIATION LLC ..................... LLC .................. 1 177 170.0 0.1 336411 1500 emp ... Aircraft Manufacturing. 

RAINBOW KING LODGE INC ... Corporation ...... 2 209 340.0 0.2 721199 $8 mn ......... All Other Traveler Accommodation. 

DOYON AIRCRAFT LEASING 

LLC.

LLC .................. 1 250 170.0 0.1 532411 $40 mn ....... Comm’l Air, Rail, & Water 

Transp. Equip. Rental and 

Leasing. 

KENMORE CREW LEASING 

INC TRUSTEE.

Corporation ...... 1 278 170.0 0.1 532490 $35 mn ....... Other Comm’l & Ind. Machinery 

and Equip. Rental & Leasing. 

COMANCHE FIGHTERS LLC ... LLC .................. 1 301 170.0 0.1 813930 $14.5 mn .... Labor Unions and Similar Labor 

Organizations. 

BAY AIR INC ............................. Corporation ...... 1 307 170.0 0.1 481111 1500 emp ... Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation. 

COYOTE AIR LLC ..................... LLC .................. 2 310 340.0 0.1 481211 1500 emp ... Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transp. 

KINGFISHER AIR INC ............... Corporation ...... 1 366 170.0 0.0 481219 $22 mn ....... Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation. 

ASSOCIATED LEASING LLC ... LLC .................. 1 500 170.0 0.0 532490 $35 mn ....... Other Comm’l & Ind. Machinery 

and Equip. Rental & Leasing. 

TIKCHIK NARROWS LODGE 

INC.

Corporation ...... 3 720 510.0 0.1 721214 $8 mn ......... Recreational and Vacation 

Camps (except Campgrounds). 

NORTHWEST SEAPLANES 

INC.

Corporation ...... 3 750 510.0 0.1 481111 1500 emp ... Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation. 

SNOW MOUNTAIN ENTERPRISES LLC.LLC .................. 1 750 170.0 0.0 532000 $8 mn ......... Rental and Leasing Services, 

N.F.S. 

ISLAND WINGS AIR SERVICE 

LLC.

LLC .................. 2 956 340.0 0.0 481211 1500 emp ... Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transp. 

TVPX AIRCRAFT SOLUTIONS 

INC TRUSTEE.

Corporation ...... 3 1,157 510.0 0.0 336310 1000 emp ... Motor Vehicle Gasoline Engine 

and Engine Parts Mfg. 

SHELDON AIR SERVICE LLC .. LLC .................. 1 1,400 170.0 0.0 481219 $22 mn ....... Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation. 

TALKEETNA AIR TAXI INC ...... Corporation ...... 1 1,635 170.0 0.0 481219 $22 mn ....... Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation. 

NO SEE UM LODGE INC ......... Corporation ...... 3 2,036 510.0 0.0 721214 $8 mn ......... Recreational and Vacation 

Camps (except Campgrounds). 

WARD AIR INC .......................... Corporation ...... 4 2,191 680.0 0.0 481219 $22 mn ....... Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation. 

HISTORIC FLIGHT FOUNDATION.Corporation ...... 1 2,500 340.0 0.0 712110 $30 mn ....... Museums. 

LAKE HAVASU SEAPLANES 

LLC.

LLC .................. 1 2,500 170.0 0.0 611000 $8 mn ......... Educational Services, N.F.S. 

RDJ BROTHERS TRUCKING 

INC.

Corporation ...... 1 2,500 170.0 0.0 236000 $39.5 mn .... Construction of buildings, N.F.S. 

SEAWIND AVIATION INC ......... Corporation ...... 2 2,500 170.0 0.0 481211 1500 emp ... Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transp. 

TIKCHIK AIRVENTURES LLC .. LLC .................. 1 2,500 170.0 0.0 481211 1500 emp ... Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transp. 

WOLF TRAIL LODGE INC ........ Corporation ...... 1 2,500 170.0 0.0 721000 $8 mn ......... Accommodation, N.F.S. 

ANDREW AIRWAYS INC .......... Corporation ...... 3 2,576 510.0 0.0 485999 $16.5 mn .... All Other Transit and Ground 

Passenger Transportation. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 67635 

4These revenue data come from online sources 

such as zoominfo.com, opencorporates.com, 

buzzfile.com, manta.com, allbiz.com, and 

lookupcompanyrevenue.com. 

TABLE 1—COST IMPACT ON SMALL ENTITIES—Continued 

Operator FAA Registry 

type 

DHC–2 

A/C 

Revenues 

($1,000) Cost 

Cost/ 

revenue 

(%) 

NAICS 

code 

Size 

standard NAICS industry 

ALASKAS ENCHANTED LAKE 

LODGE INC.

Corporation ...... 2 2,729 340.0 0.0 721310 $12.5 mn .... Rooming & Boarding Houses, 

Dormitories, and Workers’ 

Camps. 

RAINBOW RIVER LODGE LLC LLC .................. 2 4,000 340.0 0.0 721214 $8 mn ......... Recreational and Vacation 

Camps (except Campgrounds). 

K BAY AIR LLC ......................... LLC .................. 1 4,427 170.0 0.0 481219 $22 mn ....... Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation. 

RAPIDS CAMP LODGE INC ..... Corporation ...... 1 7,000 170.0 0.0 713990 $8 mn ......... All Other Amusement and 

Recreation Industries. 

PROGRESSIVE PLASTICS INC Corporation ...... 1 7,500 170.0 0.0 326199 750 emp ..... All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing. 

BROWN HELICOPTER INC ...... Corporation ...... 1 9,000 170.0 0.0 336412 1500 emp ... Aircraft Engine and Engine 

Parts Manufacturing. 

PERRYCOOK FLIGHT SERVICES LLC.LLC .................. 1 12,500 170.0 0.0 481211 1500 emp ... Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transp. 

KOMRO INTERNATIONAL LLC LLC .................. 1 14,100 170.0 0.0 423820 125 emp ..... Farm & Garden Machinery & 

Equip. Merchant Wholesalers. 

CONCRETE WORKS OF COLORADO INC.Corporation ...... 1 16,190 170.0 0.0 238110 $16.5 mn .... Poured Concrete Foundation 

and Structure Contractors. 

KENMORE AIR HARBOR LLC LLC .................. 9 51,500 1,530.0 0.0 481111 1500 emp ... Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation. 

Total 80 $161,997 $13,600. 

Mean $3,600 $302 0.1% 

Median $956 $170 0.0% 

Notes: 

1. The size standard is the maximum size for the NAICS industry considered by the Small Business Administration to be a small entity. 

2. AD costs per airplane are 1 work-hour × $85 = $85 + $85 reporting costs for initial inspection, for a total of $170. 

3. All percentage figures are rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent. All 0.0% figures represent values below 0.1%, but above 0%. 

5. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, 

and Other Compliance Requirements 

The FAA estimates that this AD will 

take 1 work-hour per airplane at a labor 

rate of $85 per work-hour to incorporate 

into the existing maintenance records 

the actions specified in Parts 2 and 3 of 

Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, plus $85 

per airplane to report any Level 2 

corrosion found during the initial or 

subsequent inspections or any Level 3 

corrosion found during the initial or 

subsequent inspections, for an estimated 

total cost of $170 per airplane. 

The estimated cost of this AD, per 

small entity, is shown in the ‘‘Cost’’ 

column of Table 1 and cost impact is 

measured by cost as a percentage of 

revenues. As the table shows, the mean 

cost impact is 0.1% of annual 

revenues,4 while the median cost 

impact is 0.0%. 

To the extent that small entities 

provide more unique services or serve 

markets with less competition, they may 

also be able to pass on costs in the form 

of price increases. However, the FAA 

assumed that none of these small 

entities would be able to pass these 

compliance costs to their customers in 

terms of higher prices. This shows no 

significant impact on any of the small 

entities. 

6. Significant Alternatives Considered 

As part of the FRFA, the FAA is 

required to consider regulatory 

alternatives that may be less 

burdensome. 

The FAA did not find any significant 

regulatory alternatives to this AD that 

would accomplish the safety objectives 

of this AD. 

Regulatory Findings 

This AD will not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This AD will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the RFA. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by: 

■ a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 

64–09–03, Amendment 718 (29 FR 

5390, April 22, 1964); and 

■ b. Adding the following new 

airworthiness directive: 

2023–19–06 Viking Air Limited (Type 

Certificate Previously Held by 

Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland Inc.): 

Amendment 39–22556; Docket No. 

FAA–2022–0190; Project Identifier 

2019–CE–048–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This airworthiness directive (AD) is 

effective November 6, 2023. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD replaces AD 64–09–03, 

Amendment 718 (29 FR 5390, April 22, 

1964). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Viking Air Limited 

(type certificate previously held by 

Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland Inc.) 

Model DHC–2 Mk. I, DHC–2 Mk. II, and 

DHC–2 Mk. III airplanes, all serial numbers, 

certificated in any category. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
67636 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 

Code 2000, Airframe. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by mandatory 

continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of another 

country to identify and correct an unsafe 

condition on an aviation product. The MCAI 

describes the unsafe condition as corrosionrelated degradation in aging aircraft. The 

FAA is issuing this AD to detect and address 

corrosion, which could lead to structural 

failure with consequent loss of control of the 

airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Required Actions 

(1) Within 90 days after the effective date 

of this AD, incorporate into the existing 

maintenance records required by 14 CFR 

91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2), as applicable 

for your airplane, the actions and associated 

thresholds and intervals, including life 

limits, specified in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking 

DHC–2 Beaver Supplemental Inspection and 

Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1–2–5, 

Revision 1, dated January 10, 2019 (Viking 

PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1). Do each initial task 

within 6 months after the effective date of 

this AD or at the threshold for each 

applicable task specified in Part 3 of Viking 

Product Support Manual PSM 1–2–5, 

Revision 1, whichever occurs later. Where 

Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, specifies 

contacting Viking for instructions on forward 

and rear fin attachment bolt replacement, 

inspection, and installation, and for a 

disposition regarding attachment bolts, this 

AD requires contacting the Manager, 

International Validation Branch, FAA; or 

Transport Canada; or Viking’s Transport 

Canada Design Approval Organization 

(DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval 

must include the DAO-authorized signature. 

Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1): Viking DHC–2 

Beaver Service Bulletin V2/0011, Revision 

NC, dated November 28, 2019, contains 

additional information related to this AD. 

(2) After the action required by paragraph 

(g)(1) of this AD has been done, no 

alternative actions and associated thresholds 

and intervals, including life limits, are 

allowed unless they are approved as 

specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. 

(h) Reporting 

(1) For inspections done after the effective 

date of this AD, report to Viking any Level 

2 or Level 3 corrosion, as specified in Viking 

PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, at the times specified 

in and in accordance with part 3, paragraph 

5, of Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1. 

(2) For inspections done before the 

effective date of this AD, within 30 days after 

the effective date of this AD, report to Viking 

any Level 2 or Level 3 corrosion, as specified 

in Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, in 

accordance with part 3, paragraph 5, of 

Viking PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1. 

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, International Validation 

Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the International Validation 

Branch, mail it to ATTN: Program Manager, 

Continuing Operational Safety, at the address 

identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD or 

email to: 9-AVS-AIR-730-AMOC@faa.gov. If 

mailing information, also submit information 

by email. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair, 

modification, or alteration required by this 

AD if it is approved specifically for this AD 

by the Manager, International Validation 

Branch, FAA. 

(j) Additional Information 

(1) Refer to the MCAI from Transport 

Canada, AD CF–2019–25, dated July 5, 2019, 

for related information. This Transport 

Canada AD may be found in the AD docket 

at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA– 

2022–0190. 

(2) For more information about this AD, 

contact James Delisio, Continued Operational 

Safety Program Manager, FAA, 1600 Stewart 

Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; 

phone: (516) 228–7321; email: 9-avs-nyacocos@faa.gov. 

(3) Service information identified in this 

AD that is not incorporated by reference is 

available at the addresses specified in 

paragraphs (k)(3) and (4) of this AD. 

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Viking DHC–2 Beaver Supplemental 

Inspection and Corrosion Control Manual, 

PSM 1–2–5, Revision 1, dated January 10, 

2019. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Viking Air Limited 

Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way, 

Sidney, British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; 

phone: (800) 663–8444; fax: (250) 656–0673; 

email: technical.support@vikingair.com; 

website: vikingair.com/support/servicebulletins. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, 

Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on 

the availability of this material at the FAA, 

call (817) 222–5110. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, 

email: fr.inspection@nara.gov, or go to: 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued on September 15, 2023. 

Victor Wicklund, 

Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–21631 Filed 9–29–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2022–0674; Project 

Identifier AD–2021–00373–T; Amendment 

39–22559; AD 2023–19–09] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020–24– 

04, which applied to all The Boeing 

Company Model 787–8, 787–9, and 

787–10 airplanes. AD 2020–24–04 

required revising the existing airplane 

flight manual (AFM) to incorporate 

procedures for an approach with a 

localizer-based navigation aid, 

monitoring localizer raw data, calling 

out any significant deviations, and 

performing an immediate go around 

under certain conditions. This AD was 

prompted by the development of a 

modification to address the previously 

identified unsafe condition, and the 

identification of a separate unsafe 

condition where misleading vertical 

flight director (FD) guidance can be 

presented to the flightcrew under 

certain conditions. This AD continues to 

require the actions specified in AD 

2020–24–04 and requires installing 

applicable software updates to the flight 

control module (FCM). Using updated 

software terminates the retained AFM 

requirement in this AD. The FAA is 

issuing this AD to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective November 6, 

2023. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of November 6, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: 

AD Docket: You may examine the AD 

docket at regulations.gov under Docket 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1