[Federal Register: November 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 70342-70343]
[DOCID:fr20no08-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2911-035]

Four Dam Pool Power Agency, Southeast Alaska Power Agency; Notice
of Application for Transfer of License, and Soliciting Comments,
Motions To Intervene, and Protests

November 14, 2008.
    On October 6, 2008, Four Dam Pool Power Agency (Transferor) and
Southeast Alaska Power Agency (Transferee) filed an application, for
transfer of license of the Swan Lake Project, located on Falls Creek in
Ketchikan, Alaska.
    Applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the
Four Dam Pool Power Agency to Southeast Alaska Power Agency.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. William H. Prentice, Ater Wynne LLP, 222 SW
Columbia Street, Suite 1800, Portland, OR 97201-6618, phone (503) 226-
1191.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene: 30 days from
the issuance of this notice. Comments, motions to intervene, and
notices of intent may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-2911-
035) in the docket number field to access the document.

For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-27569 Filed 11-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 215)]
[Notices]
[Page 62880]
[DOCID:fr07no07-90]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health;
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health;
notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and
Health (``MACOSH'' or ``Committee'') was established to advise the
Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA on issues relating to
occupational safety and health in the maritime industries. The purpose
of this Federal Register notice is to announce the MACOSH and workgroup
meetings scheduled for November 27-28, 2007.

DATES: The workgroups will meet on November 27, 2007, from 8:15 a.m.
until approximately 5:15 p.m. in conference rooms C-5515-A and B.
MACOSH will meet on November 28, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. until
approximately 5:30 p.m. in conference rooms S-5215-A, B, and C.

ADDRESSES: The Committee and workgroups will meet at the Frances
Perkins Building, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20210. Building security requires that attendees
have photographic identification (e.g., a valid driver's license) and
pass through a screening device. Mail comments, views, or statements in
response to this notice to Joseph V. Daddura, Acting Director, Office
of Maritime, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information about MACOSH
and this meeting, contact: Joseph V. Daddura, Acting Director, Office
of Maritime, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Individuals
with disabilities wishing to attend the meeting should contact Vanessa
L. Welch at<PHONE_NUMBER> no later than November 20, 2007, to obtain
appropriate accommodations.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All MACOSH meetings and workgroup meetings
are open to the public. All interested persons are invited to attend
the MACOSH and workgroup meetings at the times and places listed above.
Each workgroup may discuss one or more of the topics listed for that
workgroup as time permits. The meeting times for each workgroup are
approximate and subject to change without advance notice.
    The Longshoring workgroup will meet from 8:15 a.m. until 10:15 a.m.
in conference room C-5515-A. Discussions may include the traffic safety
in marine terminals guidance document, roll-on roll-off cargo guidance
document, and the International Maritime Organization's (IMO)
initiative on cargo-lashing safety.
    The Shipyards workgroup will meet from 8:15 a.m. until 10:15 a.m.
in conference room C-5515-B. Discussions may include spray paint
standards and hot work on coatings.
    The Cranes and Falls workgroup will meet from 10:15 a.m. until
12:15 p.m. in conference room C-5515-A. Discussions may include working
over water from aerial work platforms and the National Transportation
Safety Board's recommendation to OSHA on the Athena 106 investigation.
    The Outreach and Safety Culture workgroup will meet from 1:15 p.m.
until 3:15 p.m. in conference room C-5515-A. Discussions may include
leading indicators, e-tools, non-English worker issues, new technology
and safety, updating the OSHA Training Institute shipyard and
longshoring courses, the new maritime outreach training course, and an
update from the Mobile Area OSHA maritime alliance on the 10-hour and
30-hour outreach courses.
    The Health workgroup will meet from 3:15 p.m. until 5:15 p.m. in
conference room C-5515-A. Discussions will include radiation exposure
in marine terminals.
    MACOSH agenda: The agenda will include: An OSHA activities update,
report on Ergonomics for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders:
Guidelines for Shipyards, reports from each workgroup, an update on the
NIOSH maritime hearing-protection study, a briefing on the NIOSH
National Occupational Research Agenda (``NORA''), an update on OSHA's
electrical standard, and a review of the minutes from the previous
meeting.
    Public Participation: Written data, views, or comments for
consideration by MACOSH on the various agenda items listed above should
be submitted to Vanessa L. Welch at the address listed above.
Submissions received by November 20, 2007, will be provided to
Committee members and will be included in the record of the meeting.
Requests to make oral presentations to the Committee may be granted as
time permits. Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the
Committee on any of the agenda items listed above should notify Vanessa
L. Welch by November 20, 2007. The request should state the amount of
time desired, the capacity in which the person will appear, and a brief
outline of the content of the presentation.
    Authority: Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice
under the authority granted by Sections 6(b)(1) and 7(b) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655, 656), the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), Secretary of Labor's
Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), and 29 CFR part 1912.

    Signed at Washington, DC on November 2, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E7-21845 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: November 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 71639-71640]
[DOCID:fr25no08-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER02-2001-009; Docket No. ER07-559-000]

Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G.
Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff; Electric
Quarterly Reports, Flat Earth Energy, LLCOrder on Intent To Revoke
Market-Based Rate Authority

November 20, 2008.
    1. Section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824d
(2000), and 18 CFR part 35 (2008), require, among other things, that
all rates, terms, and conditions of jurisdictional services be filed
with the Commission. In Order No. 2001, the Commission revised its
public utility filing requirements and established a requirement for
public utilities, including power marketers, to file Electric Quarterly
Reports summarizing the contractual terms and conditions in their
agreements for all jurisdictional services (including market-based
power sales, cost-based power sales, and transmission service) and
providing transaction information (including rates) for short-term and
long-term power sales during the most recent calendar quarter.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements, Order No. 2001,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,127, reh'g denied, Order No. 2001-A, 100
FERC ] 61,074, reconsideration and clarification denied, Order No.
2001-B, 100 FERC ] 61,342, order directing filings, Order No. 2001-
C, 101 FERC ] 61,314 (2002) order directing filings, Order No. 2001-
D, 102 FERC ] 61,334 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Commission staff's review of the Electric Quarterly Report
submittals indicates that one utility with authority to sell electric
power at market-based rates has failed to file its Electric Quarterly
Reports. This order notifies this public utility that its market-based
rate authorization will be revoked unless it complies with the
Commission's requirements within 15 days of the date of issuance of
this order.
    3. In Order No. 2001, the Commission stated that,

    [i]f a public utility fails to file a[n] Electric Quarterly
Report (without an appropriate request for extension), or fails to
report an agreement in a report, that public utility may forfeit its
market-based rate authority and may be required to file a new
application for market-based rate authority if it wishes to resume
making sales at market-based rates.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Order No. 2001 at P 222.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    4. The Commission further stated that,

    [o]nce this rule becomes effective, the requirement to comply
with this rule will supersede the conditions in public utilities'
market-based rate authorizations, and failure to comply with the
requirements of this rule will subject public utilities to the same
consequences they would face for not satisfying the conditions in
their rate authorizations, including possible revocation of their
authority to make wholesale power sales at market-based rates.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id. at P 223.

    5. Pursuant to these requirements, the Commission has revoked the
market-based rate tariffs of several market-based rate sellers that
failed to submit their Electric Quarterly Reports.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Electric Quarterly Reports, 73 FR 31,460 (June 2,
2008); Electric Quarterly Reports, 115 FERC ] 61,073 (2006),
Electric Quarterly Reports, 114 FERC ] 61,171 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. As noted above, Commission staff's review of the Electric
Quarterly Report submittals identified one public utility with
authority to sell power at market-based rates that failed to file
Electric Quarterly Reports through the third quarter of 2008.
Commission staff contacted this entity to remind it of its regulatory
obligations.\5\ Nevertheless, the public utility listed in the caption
of this order has not met those obligations.\6\ Accordingly, this order
notifies this public utility that its market-based rate authorization
will be revoked unless it complies with the Commission's requirements
within 15 days of the issuance of this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Flat Earth Energy, LLC, Docket No. ER07-559-000 (October
7, 2008) (unpublished letter order).
    \6\ According to the Commission's records, the company subject
to this order last filed its Electric Quarterly Reports for the 1st
quarter of 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. In the event that the above-captioned market-based rate seller
has already filed its Electric Quarterly Report in compliance with the
Commission's requirements, its inclusion herein is inadvertent. Such
market-based rate seller is directed, within 15 days of the date of
issuance of this order, to make a filing with the

Commission identifying itself and providing details about its prior
filings that establish that it complied with the Commission's Electric
Quarterly Report filing requirements.
    8. If the above-captioned market-based rate seller does not wish to
continue having market-based rate authority, it may file a notice of
cancellation with the Commission pursuant to section 205 of the FPA to
cancel its market-based rate tariff.
    The Commission orders:
    (A) Within 15 days of the date of issuance of this order, the
public utility listed in the caption of this order shall file with the
Commission all delinquent Electric Quarterly Reports. If the public
utility fails to make this filing, the Commission will revoke that
public utility's authority to sell power at market-based rates and will
terminate its electric market-based rate tariff. The Secretary is
hereby directed, upon expiration of the filing deadline in this order,
to promptly issue a notice, effective on the date of issuance, listing
the public utility whose tariff has been revoked for failure to comply
with the requirements of this order and the Commission's Electric
Quarterly Report filing requirements.
    (B) The Secretary is hereby directed to publish this order in the
Federal Register.

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-27992 Filed 11-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3244]
[DOCID:fr17ja08-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER08-201-000; ER08-201-001; ER08-202-000; ER08-202-001]

Cogentrix Virginia Leasing Corporation, James River Cogeneration
Company, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

January 10, 2008.
    Cogentrix Virginia Leasing Corporation and James River
Cogeneration, LLC (collectively, the Applicants) filed applications for
market-based rate authority, with accompanying rate schedules. The
proposed market-based rate schedules provide for the sale of energy,
capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. The Applicants
also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In
particular, the Applicants requested that the Commission grant blanket
approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability by the Applicants.
    On January 10, 2008, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's
Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice
in the Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the
blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by the Applicants, should file a protest with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
January 22, 2008.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, the Applicants are authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of the Applicants, compatible with
the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for
such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of the Applicants' issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-714 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 25, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24927-24937]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08551]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

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

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-0190; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains the NPRM, this SNPRM, the mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact
Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way, Sidney,
British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Delisio, Continued Operational
Safety Program Manager, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

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

Confidential Business Information

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

Background

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

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

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

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

Comments

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

Request To Withdraw NPRM: Current Regulations Are Adequate

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

Request To Withdraw NPRM: Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request To Acknowledge Impacts on Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

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

Request To Supersede All Corrosion ADs for the Affected Models

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

Request To Add Airplanes to Aging Aircraft or Other Existing Rulemaking

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

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

Request To Revise the Number of Affected Airplanes

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

Request To Revise Costs of Compliance: Labor Rate

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

Request To Revise Requirements Based on Airplane Usage Conditions

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

Request To Clarify Process for Creating Corrosion Prevention and
Control Program

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

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

Request To Remove or Revise Certain Inspection Requirements

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

Request To Allow Phase-in of Inspections

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

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

Request To Allow Mechanics To Perform Certain Tasks

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

Request To Require Reporting to FAA Not Viking

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

Revised Estimated Costs of Compliance in This SNPRM

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

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements in This SNPRM

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

ADs Mandating Airworthiness Limitations (ALS)

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

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

Other Related Service Information

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

Impact on Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

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

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

Costs of Compliance

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

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

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

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

1. Reasons the Action Is Being Considered

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

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

2. Objectives and Legal Basis of the Proposed Rule

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

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

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

4. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements

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

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

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

6. Significant Alternatives Considered

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

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

(a) Comments Due Date

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

 (b) Affected ADs

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

 (c) Applicability

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

 (d) Subject

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

 (e) Unsafe Condition

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

 (f) Compliance

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

 (g) Required Actions

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

 (h) Reporting

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

 (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

 (j) Additional Information

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

 (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

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