Document ID: FAA-2020-1076-0005
Agency: faa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Airworthiness Directives: Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Airplanes
Posted Date: 2023-06-28T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 28, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41863-41870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13617]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

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

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     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-2020-1076; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except

[[Page 41864]]

Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, this SNPRM, the 
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments 
received, and other information. The street address for Docket 
Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     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: Deep Gaurav, Aviation Safety Engineer, 
FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 
228-3731; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or 
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed 
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-1076; Project Identifier 
MCAI-2020-01201-A'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful 
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the 
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA 
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may again 
revise this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in 
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to 
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 Deep Gaurav, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart 
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA 
receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in 
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

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

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

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

Comments

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

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

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

[[Page 41865]]

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

Request To Withdraw NPRM: Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

Request To Add Airplanes to Aging Aircraft or Other Existing Rulemaking

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

Request To Revise Requirements Based on Airplane Usage Conditions

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

Request To Clarify Process for Creating Corrosion Prevention and 
Control Program

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

[[Page 41866]]

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

Request To Allow Mechanics to Perform Certain Tasks

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

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

Other Related Service Information

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

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements in This SNPRM

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

ADs Mandating Airworthiness Limitations (ALS)

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

Impact on Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

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

Costs of Compliance

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

[[Page 41867]]

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

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

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

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

1. Reasons the Action Is Being Considered

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

2. Objectives and Legal Basis of the Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 41868]]

detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities

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

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

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

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

4. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

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

    \3\ These revenue data come from online sources such as 
zoominfo.com, opencorporates.com, buzzfile.com, manta.com, 
allbiz.com, and lookupcompanyrevenue.com.

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

[[Page 41869]]

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

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

6. Significant Alternatives Considered

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

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

(a) Comments Due Date

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

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

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

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

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

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

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

(h) Reporting

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

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(j) Additional Information

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

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the 
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this 
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do 
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Viking DHC-3 Otter Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion 
Control Manual, PSM 1-3-5, Revision IR, dated December 21, 2017.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact 
Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way, Sidney, 
British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone: (800) 663-8444; fax: (250) 
656-0673; email: [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

[[Page 41870]]

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