69030 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

he or she signs a form on which the TSP 

requests spousal information, including 

a spouse from whom the participant is 

legally separated, and a person with 

whom the participant is living in a 

relationship that constitutes a common 

law marriage in the jurisdiction in 

which they live. Where a participant is 

seeking to reclaim an account that has 

been forfeited pursuant to 5 CFR 

1650.16, spouse also means the person 

to whom the participant was married on 

the withdrawal deadline. For purposes 

of 5 CFR 1651.5 and 5 CFR 1651.19, 

spouse also means the person to whom 

the participant was married on the date 

of the participant’s death. 

* * * * * 

Uniformed services beneficiary 

participant account means a beneficiary 

participant account that is established 

with a death benefit payment from a 

TSP account to which contributions 

were made by or on behalf of a member 

of the uniformed services. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–28320 Filed 11–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6760–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–1109; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–155–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc. Model CL–600–2C10 (Regional Jet 

Series 700, 701, & 702) Airplanes, 

Model CL–600–2D15 (Regional Jet 

Series 705) Airplanes, and Model CL– 

600–2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This proposed 

AD results from 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: 

Rudder Travel Limiter (RTL) return spring, 

part number (P/N) E0650–069–2750S, failed 

prior to completion of the required 

endurance test. In addition, the replacement 

RTL return spring, P/N 670–93465–1 * * * 

was found to be susceptible to chafing on the 

primary actuator, which could also result in 

eventual dormant spring failure. There are 

two return springs in the RTL and if both 

springs failed, a subsequent mechanical 

disconnect of the RTL components would 

result in an unannunciated failure of the 

RTL. This, in turn, would permit an increase 

of rudder authority beyond normal structural 

limits and, in the event of a strong rudder 

input, controllability of the aeroplane could 

be affected. 

* * * * * 

The proposed AD would require 

actions that are intended to address the 

unsafe condition described in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 27, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–40, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, 

Inc., 400 Coˆte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, 

Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 

514–855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; 

e-mail thd.crj@aero.bombardier.com; 

Internet http://www.bombardier.com. 

You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe and Mechanical Systems 

Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 

Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, 

New York 11590; telephone (516) 228– 

7318; fax (516) 794–5531. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2010–1109; Directorate Identifier 

2010–NM–155–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD based on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation 

(TCCA), which is the aviation authority 

for Canada, has issued Canadian 

Airworthiness Directive CF–2010–18, 

dated June 16, 2010 (referred to after 

this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe 

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

Rudder Travel Limiter (RTL) return spring, 

part number (P/N) E0650–069–2750S, failed 

prior to completion of the required 

endurance test. In addition, the replacement 

RTL return spring, P/N 670–93465–1 (see 

Note) was found to be susceptible to chafing 

on the primary actuator, which could also 

result in eventual dormant spring failure. 

There are two return springs in the RTL and 

if both springs failed, a subsequent 

mechanical disconnect of the RTL 

components would result in an 

unannunciated failure of the RTL. This, in 

turn, would permit an increase of rudder 

authority beyond normal structural limits 

and, in the event of a strong rudder input, 

controllability of the aeroplane could be 

affected. 

Note: RTL return springs, P/N 670–93465– 

1, were installed in production aeroplanes 

serial number 10266 (CL–600–2C10) and 

15182 (CL–600–2D24) respectively and were 

introduced in-service by [Bombardier] 

Service Bulletin (SB) 670BA–27–047. SB 

670BA–27–047 has since been superseded by 

[Bombardier] SB 670BA–27–055. 

This directive mandates repetitive [detailed] 

inspection of the RTL [for broken] return 

springs and [damage through the casing, or 

chafing of the casing of the] primary actuator, 

with replacement of parts as necessary. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 69031 

Corrective actions include replacing 

any broken return springs with new 

return springs, repairing any chafing of 

the primary actuator on its casing, and 

replacing any primary actuator that has 

damage through its casing with a new 

actuator. You may obtain further 

information by examining the MCAI in 

the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service 

Bulletin 670BA–27–055, Revision A, 

dated August 6, 2010. The actions 

described in this service information are 

intended to correct the unsafe condition 

identified in the MCAI. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of another 

country, and is approved for operation 

in the United States. Pursuant to our 

bilateral agreement with the State of 

Design Authority, we have been notified 

of the unsafe condition described in the 

MCAI and service information 

referenced above. We are proposing this 

AD because we evaluated all pertinent 

information and determined an unsafe 

condition exists and is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of the same 

type design. 

Differences Between This AD and the 

MCAI or Service Information 

We have reviewed the MCAI and 

related service information and, in 

general, agree with their substance. But 

we might have found it necessary to use 

different words from those in the MCAI 

to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. 

operators and is enforceable. In making 

these changes, we do not intend to differ 

substantively from the information 

provided in the MCAI and related 

service information. 

We might also have proposed 

different actions in this AD from those 

in the MCAI in order to follow FAA 

policies. Any such differences are 

highlighted in a Note within the 

proposed AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

Based on the service information, we 

estimate that this proposed AD would 

affect about 477 products of U.S. 

registry. We also estimate that it would 

take about 2 work-hours per product to 

comply with the basic requirements of 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on 

these figures, we estimate the cost of the 

proposed AD on U.S. operators to be 

$81,090, or $170 per product. 

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. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. 

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 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA–2010– 

1109; Directorate Identifier 2010–NM– 

155–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by 

December 27, 2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. 

Model CL–600–2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 

701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10003 

and subsequent; and Model CL–600–2D15 

(Regional Jet Series 705) and Model CL–600– 

2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, 

serial numbers 15001 and subsequent; 

certificated in any category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 27: Flight controls. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

Rudder Travel Limiter (RTL) return spring, 

part number (P/N) E0650–069–2750S, failed 

prior to completion of the required 

endurance test. In addition, the replacement 

RTL return spring, P/N 670–93465–1 * * * 

was found to be susceptible to chafing on the 

primary actuator, which could also result in 

eventual dormant spring failure. There are 

two return springs in the RTL and if both 

springs failed, a subsequent mechanical 

disconnect of the RTL components would 

result in an unannunciated failure of the 

RTL. This, in turn, would permit an increase 

of rudder authority beyond normal structural 

limits and, in the event of a strong rudder 

input, controllability of the aeroplane could 

be affected. 

* * * * * 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed 

within the compliance times specified, 

unless the actions have already been 

done. 

Initial Inspections and Replacement/ 

Repair 

(g) For airplanes that have 

accumulated 4,000 or less total flight 

hours as of the effective date of this AD: 

Before the accumulation of 6,000 total 

flight hours, do a detailed inspection of 

the RTL for broken return springs and 

damage through the casing, or chafing of 

the casing of the primary actuator, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Bombardier Service 

Bulletin 670BA–27–055, Revision A, 

dated August 6, 2010. Before further 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
69032 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

flight, replace any broken return springs 

with new springs, and repair or replace 

with a new actuator any chafed or 

damaged primary actuator, as 

applicable, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA–27– 

055, Revision A, dated August 6, 2010. 

Repeat the inspection thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight 

hours. 

(h) For airplanes that have 

accumulated more than 4,000 total flight 

hours as of the effective date of this AD: 

Within 2,000 flight hours after the 

effective date of this AD, do a detailed 

inspection of the RTL for broken return 

springs and damage through the casing, 

or chafing of the casing of the primary 

actuator, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA–27– 

055, Revision A, dated August 6, 2010. 

Before further flight, replace any broken 

return springs with new springs, and 

repair or replace any chafed or damaged 

primary actuator with a new actuator, as 

applicable, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA–27– 

055, Revision A, dated August 6, 2010. 

Repeat the inspection thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight 

hours. 

Credit for Actions Accomplished in 

Accordance With Previous Service 

Information 

(i) Actions accomplished before the 

effective date of this AD in accordance 

with Bombardier Service Bulletin 

670BA–27–055, dated May 11, 2010, are 

considered acceptable for compliance 

with the corresponding actions 

specified in this AD. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(j) The following provisions also 

apply to this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of 

Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, 

New York Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), ANE–170, FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this 

AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send 

information to ATTN: Program Manager, 

Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, 

New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, 

Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; 

telephone 516–228–7300; fax 516–794– 

5531. Before using any approved AMOC 

on any airplane to which the AMOC 

applies, notify your principal 

maintenance inspector (PMI) or 

principal avionics inspector (PAI), as 

appropriate, or lacking a principal 

inspector, your local Flight Standards 

District Office. The AMOC approval 

letter must specifically reference this 

AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain 

corrective actions from a manufacturer 

or other source, use these actions if they 

are FAA-approved. Corrective actions 

are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design 

Authority (or their delegated agent). You 

are required to assure the product is 

airworthy before it is returned to 

service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has approved the information 

collection requirements and has 

assigned OMB Control Number 2120– 

0056. 

Related Information 

(k) Refer to MCAI Canadian 

Airworthiness Directive CF–2010–18, 

dated June 16, 2010; and Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 670BA–27–055, 

Revision A, dated August 6, 2010; for 

related information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 2, 2010. 

Dionne Palermo, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28338 Filed 11–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers 

33 CFR Part 334 

Naval Surface Warfare Center, 

Potomac River, Dahlgren, VA; Danger 

Zone 

AGENCY: United States Army Corps of 

Engineers, Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Corps of Engineers is 

proposing to amend an existing 

permanent danger zone in the waters of 

the Upper Machodoc Creek and the 

Potomac River in the vicinity of 

Dahlgren in King George County, 

Virginia. The Naval Surface Warfare 

Center, Dahlgren conducts research, 

development, testing and evaluation of 

national defense systems on the 

Potomac River Test Range. Many of the 

tests are hazardous operations 

presenting a danger to persons or 

property in the danger zone. The 

proposed amendment is necessary to 

protect the public from hazardous 

operations such as firing large and small 

caliber guns and projectiles, aerial 

bombing, use of directed energy and 

operating manned or unmanned 

watercraft. The proposed amendment 

adds a 100-yard buffer to the Middle 

Danger Zone to prevent public contact 

with unexploded ordnance along the 

shoreline of Naval Surface Warfare 

Center, Dahlgren within this zone. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before December 10, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number COE– 

2010–0038, by any of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

E-mail: 

david.b.olson@usace.army.mil. Include 

the docket number, COE–2010–0038, in 

the subject line of the message. 

Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Attn: CECW–CO–R (David B. Olson), 

441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20314–1000. 

Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to 

security requirements, we cannot 

receive comments by hand delivery or 

courier. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket number COE–2010–0038. All 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the commenter indicates that the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI, or otherwise 

protected, through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov Web site is an 

anonymous access system, which means 

we will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send an e-mail directly to the Corps 

without going through regulations.gov, 

your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1