DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0190; Project Identifier 2019-CE-048-AD; Amendment
39-22556; AD 2023-19-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 64-09-03,
which applied to all de Havilland (type certificate now held by Viking
Air Limited (Viking)) Model DHC-2 ``Beaver'' airplanes. AD 64-09-03
required inspecting the aileron mass balance weight arms for cracks and
corrosion and replacing any damaged part. Since the FAA issued AD 64-
09-03, Transport Canada superseded its mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) to correct an unsafe condition on
these products. This AD requires incorporating into the existing
maintenance records for your airplane the actions and associated
thresholds and intervals, including life limits, specified in a
supplemental inspection and corrosion control manual for Model DHC-2
airplanes. This AD also requires completing all of the initial tasks
identified in this manual and reporting certain corrosion findings to
Viking. The actions in this supplemental inspection and corrosion
control manual include the inspection of the aileron balance weight
arms required by AD 64-09-03. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 6, 2023.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 6,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-0190; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the MCAI, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Material Incorporated by Reference:
For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 de Havilland Way,
Sidney, British Columbia, Canada V8L 5V5; phone: (800) 663-8444; fax:
(250) 656-0673; email: technical.support@vikingair.com; website:
vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins.
You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Delisio, Continued Operational
Safety Program Manager, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; phone: (516) 228-7321; email: 9-avs-nyaco-cos@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to supersede
AD 64-09-03, Amendment 718 (29 FR 5390, April 22, 1964) (AD 64-09-03).
AD 64-09-03 applied to all de Havilland (type certificate now held by
Viking Air Limited) Model DHC-2 ``Beaver'' airplanes. AD 64-09-03
required repetitively inspecting the aileron mass balance weight arms
for cracks and corrosion and replacing any damaged part. AD 64-09-03
resulted from cracks and corrosion found on aileron mass balance weight
arm part numbers (P/Ns) C2WA151, C2WA152, C2WA127, and C2WA128. The FAA
issued AD 64-09-03 to address corrosion-related degradation of the
aileron mass balance weight arms which, if not addressed, could lead to
structural failure with consequent loss of control of the airplane.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2022 (87
FR 7065); corrected February 18, 2022 (87 FR 9274). The NPRM was
prompted by AD CF-2019-25, dated July 19, 2019 (referred to after this
as the MCAI), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation
authority for Canada. The MCAI states that it supersedes prior
Transport Canada ADs related to a supplementary inspection and
corrosion control program for aging airplanes, which identifies
specific locations of an airplane that must be inspected to ensure
corrosion-related degradation does not result in an unsafe condition.
The MCAI continues to require the tasks included in the initial issue
of Viking, DHC-2 Beaver Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion Control
Manual, PSM 1-2-5, dated June 21, 2017, and requires additional
inspections for components of airframe systems other than flight
controls, which are included in Viking DHC-2 Beaver Supplemental
Inspection and Corrosion Control Manual, PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, dated
January 10, 2019 (Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1). Corrosion-related
degradation, if not addressed, could lead to structural failure with
consequent loss of control of the airplane.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-0190.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require establishing a corrosion
prevention and control program approved by the FAA. In the NPRM, the
FAA also proposed to require completing all of the initial tasks
identified in the program and reporting corrosion findings to Viking.
The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM)
to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 64-09-03. The SNPRM published
in the Federal Register on April 25, 2023 (88 FR 24927). The SNPRM was
prompted by the FAA's decision to revise the proposed actions specified
in the NPRM and to reopen the comment period to allow the public the
chance to comment on whether the proposed AD would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In the
SNPRM, the FAA proposed to require incorporating into the existing
maintenance records for your airplane the actions and associated
thresholds and intervals, including life limits, specified in Parts 2
and 3 of Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, completing all the initial tasks
identified in Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, and reporting to Viking any
Level 2 or Level 3 corrosion findings. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

The FAA received comments from three individuals. The following
presents the comments received on the SNPRM and the FAA's response to
each comment.

Request To Withdraw NPRM and SNPRM

One individual commenter requested that the FAA reconsider issuing
the proposed AD and a second individual commenter requested that the
FAA withdraw the proposed rulemaking. The first commenter noted that
during an annual inspection, a licensed Airframe and Powerplant (A&P)
mechanic can determine if an airplane has been properly maintained and
if corrosion is present. This commenter indicated that, by issuing the
proposed AD, the FAA would force many operators and pilots to give up
their airplanes due to exorbitant costs. This commenter stated that
because one or two airplanes were found with extensive corrosion, all
Model DHC-2 airplanes should not be placed in the same category and
that ``the Beaver'' is one of the finest built airplanes and should be
respected as such.
The second individual commenter stated that the FAA must stop broad
brushing all airplanes of a certain build as the same. The commenter
noted that a Model DHC-2 ``Beaver'' built in 1948 is not the same as
one built in 1967 and that the lifetime use of service and
environmental conditions determine an airplane's risk factors. The
commenter explained that many Beavers have thousands of pages of flight
records spanning over 70 years that allow owners and maintainers to
subjectively evaluate an airplane's condition and operating
environments; therefore, based on the points above, the FAA should
immediately withdraw the proposed rulemaking because it lacks merit.
The FAA acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding the impact
this final rule will have on operators and pilots. As noted by the
first commenter, Model DHC-2 airplanes are currently required to
perform annual and 100-hour inspections, including inspections for
corrosion, that are required by the Federal Aviation Regulations. The
FAA does not agree that these current regulations require the same
inspections as those proposed in the SNPRM. The inspections proposed in
the SNPRM are focused on certain areas of the airplane and are more
detailed than those covered in the required annual or 100-hour
inspections. The inspections required by this AD are part of a
supplemental inspection and corrosion prevention program that is
included in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1. These
inspection types and intervals address locations or parts that are not
currently required to be inspected as part of annual or 100-hour
inspections in existing regulations. These new inspections and
intervals are needed to detect and address corrosion, which could lead
to structural failure with consequent loss of control of the airplane.

The FAA also acknowledges the first commenter's concern regarding
the ``exorbitant cost'' of complying with the requirements of this AD
that could result in operators and pilots having to give up their
airplanes. Under 14 CFR 39.1, issuance of an AD is based on the finding
that an unsafe condition exists or is likely to develop in aircraft of
a particular type design. An aging airplane requires more attention
during maintenance procedures and, at times, more frequent inspections
of structural components to detect damage due to environmental
deterioration, accidental damage, and fatigue. The unsafe condition
addressed in this final rule includes undetected corrosion, which could
lead to structural failure and consequent loss of control of the
airplane. Inspections and repairs are therefore necessary to detect and
correct such corrosion before it leads to structural failure.
In response to both commenters' statements that all Model DHC-2
airplanes should not be placed in the same category, the FAA has
determined that an unsafe condition exists or is likely to exist or
develop in other products of the same type design. In this case, the
FAA independently reviewed the MCAI and related service information and
determined an unsafe condition exists and an AD is needed to address
that unsafe condition. Further, it is within the FAA's authority and
responsibility to issue ADs to require actions to address unsafe
conditions that are not otherwise being addressed (or are not addressed
adequately) by routine maintenance procedures.
The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request for Clarification Regarding Conflicting AD Requirements for the
Affected Models

One individual commenter requested clarification regarding what
operators should do if there are conflicts between the requirements
specified in the SNPRM and the requirements of existing ADs for the
affected airplanes. The commenter noted that AD 2008-11-11, Amendment
39-15533 (73 FR 34611, June 18, 2008) (AD 2008-11-11) specifies a
fluorescent penetrant inspection for cracks in the front spar center
section web of the tailplane, while task C55-10-02 in Viking PSM 1-2-5,
Revision 1, allows using a fluorescent penetrant or an eddy current
inspection, which seems contradictory.
The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern. The FAA has reviewed
all potentially related ADs against the proposed requirements in the
SNPRM and determined that other than AD 64-09-03, no other ADs need to
be superseded or rescinded. Any other ADs involving inspections for
corrosion on the affected airplanes require either inspections for
different parts or locations on an airplane or the inspections are not
as in-depth or repetitive; therefore, they do not overlap with the
inspections required by this AD. This includes the requirements of AD
2008-11-11, which requires inspecting a different airplane part than
the part specified in task C55-10-02 of Viking PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1.
The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Revise Requirements Based on Airplane Usage Conditions

One individual commenter requested that the SNPRM be revised to
provide different requirements based on how an airplane is used. The
commenter suggested that instead of using a broad approach and
including all Model DHC-2 airplanes, the FAA should use a logical
evaluation process and consider the following parameters to determine
if an airplane's airworthiness might be compromised due to corrosion:
operating environment (exposure to saltwater); commercial or private
use; stress on the airframe due to repetitive flights with heavy loads;
total flight hours on the airframe; airplane history (has it been
partially or completely rebuilt); and maintenance history.
The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request to change the SNPRM
based on different airplane operational usage. There is no current
requirement to track the hours spent flying in different conditions or
types of water. Additionally, operators may not know an airplane's
entire flight or maintenance history. Without this detailed knowledge
of each airplane, it would be impossible for the FAA to develop a
special set of inspections based on airplane usage conditions. However,
operators may submit a proposal for revised requirements by requesting
an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) using the procedures
specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Revise Costs of Compliance

One individual commenter requested that the FAA revise the labor
rate in the Costs of Compliance section of the SNPRM. The commenter
noted that the FAA's estimate of $85 per hour is not accurate and that
the current labor rate for an experienced DHC-2/3 airplane mechanic is
greater than $110 per hour, depending on where in the United States the
work is being performed. The commenter also mentioned that public
comments on the NPRM that is related to the SNPRM stated that DHC-2
mechanic rates are $110 to $150 per hour, depending on the geographic
regions where the work is being performed. The commenter added that the
proposed costs do not consider the current shortage of qualified
mechanics able to do the inspections.
The FAA agrees that the labor rate of $85 per work-hour is dated
but disagrees with the commenter's estimate of $110 to $150 per hour.
The FAA notes that the current wage rate for aviation mechanics as
provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, found at www.bls.gov/oes/
current/oes493011.htm, after accounting for fringe benefits that are
valued at roughly 50% of the nominal wage, is lower than the estimated
fully burdened labor rate (a labor rate with fringe benefits included)
of $85 per work-hour; therefore, the FAA is unable to justify
increasing the labor rate from $85 per work-hour. The FAA continues to
use the higher $85 per work-hour figure in order to provide a
conservative estimate of the costs.
Regarding the commenter's statement that the wage rate for DHC-2
mechanics varies geographically, the commenter did not provide any
documentation or references to support this statement. Furthermore,
unless the distribution of DHC-2 airplanes also varies along the same
geography, using an average rate captures the average effect, including
any higher wages; therefore, the FAA has not added a geographical
adjustment into its assessment.
The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concerns regarding labor
shortages, although this does not affect the cost of this final rule.
The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Conclusion

These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data,
considered the comments received, and determined that air safety
requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for
minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the SNPRM.

ADs Mandating Airworthiness Limitations (ALS)

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

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

Other Related Service Information

The FAA reviewed Viking DHC-2 Beaver Service Bulletin V2/0011,
Revision NC, dated November 28, 2019. This service information provides
a list of new inspection tasks that have been added to the DHC-2
supplementary inspection and corrosion control program, Viking PSM 1-2-
5, Revision 1.

Impact on Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

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

Costs of Compliance

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat.
1164 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (RFA) establishes as a principle of regulatory
issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives
of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and
informational requirements to the scale of the businesses,
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.
To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for
their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious
consideration. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including
small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
The FAA published an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
for this rule to aid the public in commenting on the potential impacts
to small entities. The FAA considered the public comments in developing
the final rule and this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). A
FRFA must contain the following:
(1) A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;
(2) A statement of the significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of the assessment of the
agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the
proposed rule as a result of such comments;
(3) The response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in
response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change
made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the
comments;
(4) A description of and an estimate of the number of small
entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such
estimate is available;
(5) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record; and
(6) A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in the final rule and why each of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the
impact on small entities was rejected.

1. Need for and Objectives of the Rule

The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 64-09-03, which applied to all de
Havilland (type certificate now held by Viking) Model DHC-2 ``Beaver''
airplanes, because after the FAA issued AD 64-09-03, Transport Canada
superseded its MCAI to identify specific locations of an airplane that
must be inspected to ensure corrosion-related degradation does not
result in an unsafe condition. This final rule requires incorporating
into the existing maintenance records for your airplane the actions and
associated thresholds and intervals, including life limits, specified
in a supplemental inspection and corrosion control manual for Model
DHC-2 airplanes. This final rule also requires completing all the
initial tasks identified in this manual and reporting certain corrosion
findings to Viking. The actions in this supplemental inspection and
corrosion control manual include the inspection of the aileron balance
weight arms required by AD 64-09-03.

2. Significant Issues Raised in Public Comments

The FAA received comments related to costs from three individual
commenters. The following presents the significant issues in the
comments received on the SNPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Revise Requirements Based on Airplane Usage Conditions

Two commenters requested that the SNPRM be revised to have
different requirements based on how the airplane is used, including but
not limited to corrosion level, operating environment (e.g., near salt
water), commercial or private use, and airplane history.
The FAA disagrees with the commenters' requests to change the SNPRM
based on airplane operational usage. There is no current requirement to
track the hours spent flying in different conditions or types of water.
Additionally, operators may not know an airplane's entire flight or
maintenance history. Without this detailed knowledge of each airplane,
it would be impossible for the FAA to develop a special set of
inspections based on airplane usage conditions. However, operators may
submit a proposal for revised requirements by requesting an AMOC using
the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. The FAA has not
changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Revise Costs of Compliance: Labor Rate

One commenter requested that the FAA revise the labor rate in the
Costs of Compliance section of the SNPRM. The commenter noted that
current labor rates are anywhere from $110 to $150 per hour and added
that the proposed costs do not consider the current shortage of
qualified mechanics able to do the inspections.
The FAA agrees that the labor rate of $85 per work-hour provided in
the SNPRM is dated but disagrees with the provided estimate of $110 to
$150 per hour provided by the commenter. The FAA notes that the current
wage rate for aviation mechanics as provided by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, found at www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes493011.htm, after
accounting for fringe benefits that are valued at roughly 50% of the
nominal wage, is lower than the estimated fully burdened labor rate (a
labor rate with fringe benefits included) of $85 per work-hour.
Therefore, the FAA is unable to justify increasing the labor rate from
$85 per work-hour. The FAA continues to use the higher $85 per work-
hour figure in order to provide a conservative estimate of the costs.
The commenter also indicated that the wage rate for DHC-2 mechanics
varies geographically but did not provide any documentation or
references to support this statement. Furthermore, unless the
distribution of DHC-2 airplanes also varies along the same geography,
using an average rate captures the average effect, including any higher
wages; therefore, the FAA has not added a geographical adjustment into
its assessment.

3. Response to SBA Comments

The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA did not file any comments
in response to the SNPRM. Thus, the FAA did not make any changes to
this final rule.

4. Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply

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

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 will be affected by this AD.
These 409 airplanes are registered to 235 private businesses, 76
individuals, and 3 government agencies. The 76 individuals and 3
government agencies are excluded from this analysis as the RFA does not
apply to individuals and the 3 government agencies are not small
entities as defined by the RFA.²
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 are 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 firms, for which revenue and employee
data were available, had been added to the sample. The shuffling was
accomplished by giving each entry in the registry an index value
between 0 and 1 using Excel's RAND function. The entries were then
sorted by that index value to randomize their order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As can be seen, the impacts range from nearly 0%, to a maximum of
0.5%. The average impact is 0.1%, and the median impact rounds to 0.0%.
As such, the FAA has determined that this rule will not significantly
impact a substantial number of small entities.

ILLUSTRATION (Table 1 - Cost Impact on Small Entities)

ILLUSTRATION (Table 1 - Cost Impact on Small Entities, continued)

5. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements

The FAA estimates that this AD will take 1 work-hour per airplane
at a labor rate of $85 per work-hour to incorporate into the existing
maintenance records the actions specified in Parts 2 and 3 of Viking
PSM 1-2-5, Revision 1, plus $85 per airplane to report any Level 2
corrosion found during the initial or subsequent inspections or any
Level 3 corrosion found during the initial or subsequent inspections,
for an estimated total cost of $170 per airplane.
The estimated cost of this AD, per small entity, is shown in the
``Cost'' column of Table 1 and cost impact is measured by cost as a
percentage of revenues. As the table shows, the mean cost impact is
0.1% of annual revenues,4 while the median cost impact is 0.0%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

To the extent that small entities provide more unique services or
serve markets with less competition, they may also be able to pass on
costs in the form of price increases. However, the FAA assumed that
none of these small entities would be able to pass these compliance
costs to their customers in terms of higher prices. This shows no
significant impact on any of the small entities.

6. Significant Alternatives Considered

As part of the FRFA, the FAA is required to consider regulatory
alternatives that may be less burdensome.
The FAA did not find any significant regulatory alternatives to
this AD that would accomplish the safety objectives of this AD.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec. 39.13 [Amended]

2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by:

a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 64-09-03, Amendment 718 (29 FR
5390, April 22, 1964); and

b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive: