Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71369 

The Petitioner states that officers who 

previously did not work much overtime 

must now ‘‘pick up the slack,’’ 

sometimes to the point of being forced 

to work overtime. The Petitioner also 

states that training sometimes has to be 

rescheduled or canceled, because the 

officers facilitating the training have 

reached their MDO mandate. 

The Petitioner states that nonmanagement/non-supervisor security 

chiefs have been impacted by the use of 

the fatigue software, EmpCenter, at the 

Nine Mile Point facility. The Petitioner 

claims that when an employee is asked 

to work overtime, the chiefs must use 

the software to determine whether that 

employee will exceed the MDO 

requirement. The petitioner describes 

this extra step as a burden on the chiefs. 

According to the petition, the attention/ 

focus of the chiefs is diverted by the 

need to coordinate with their 

supervisors in order to ensure 

compliance with the MDO requirement. 

The Petitioner also claims that 

licensees have had to increase their 

staffing across affected departments, in 

part due to the MDO requirement, thus 

increasing their costs. The Petitioner 

claims that licensees may be required to 

pass these extra costs onto the rate 

payer. Alternatively, the Petitioner 

claims that licensees may explore the 

option of contract security as a costsaving measure. 

The Petition 

The Petitioner requests that the NRC 

amend its regulations in 10 CFR part 26, 

Subpart I, to decrease the MDO 

requirement for security officers 

working 12-hour shifts from an average 

of 3 days per week to 2.5 or 2 days per 

week. The Petitioner claims that such a 

decrease in MDO would (1) bring the 

requirement in line with MDO 

requirements for Operations, 

Maintenance, and other personnel 

subject to the MDO requirements; and 

(2) have a sizeable impact on alleviating 

some of the issues the MDO 

requirements have caused or may cause 

in the future. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day 

of November 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29480 Filed 11–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–1157; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–137–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc. Model DHC–8–102, –103, –106, 

–201, –202, –301, –311, –315, –401, and 

–402 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: 

There have been several in-service reports 

of finding trapped water on the bottom of the 

cockpit windshield frames (or lower 

windshield frames) that resulted in either 

corrosion or water ingress into the cockpit. In 

one occurrence, the trapped water caused 

severe corrosion of numerous anchor nuts 

that secure the windshield to the lower 

windshield frame, such that the intended 

fastening function was seriously 

compromised. 

Corrosion of the lower windshield frames, 

including the anchor nuts that secure the 

windshield to the aircraft structure, can 

result in a serious structural degradation 

possibly leading to the loss of the windshield 

during flight. Also, water could leak into the 

cockpit and cause either a malfunction or 

failure of the electrical and electronics 

systems in the area of the cockpit instrument 

panels. 

* * * * * 

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 January 7, 2011. 

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., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 

Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario 

M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375– 

4000; fax 416–375–4539; e-mail 

thd.qseries@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: 

Craig Yates, 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– 

7355; 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–2010–1157; Directorate Identifier 

2010–NM–137–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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71370 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Discussion 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation 

(TCCA), which is the aviation authority 

for Canada, has issued Canadian 

Airworthiness Directive CF–2010–16, 

dated May 18, 2010 (referred to after 

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

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

There have been several in-service reports 

of finding trapped water on the bottom of the 

cockpit windshield frames (or lower 

windshield frames) that resulted in either 

corrosion or water ingress into the cockpit. In 

one occurrence, the trapped water caused 

severe corrosion of numerous anchor nuts 

that secure the windshield to the lower 

windshield frame, such that the intended 

fastening function was seriously 

compromised. 

Corrosion of the lower windshield frames, 

including the anchor nuts that secure the 

windshield to the aircraft structure, can 

result in a serious structural degradation 

possibly leading to the loss of the windshield 

during flight. Also, water could leak into the 

cockpit and cause either a malfunction or 

failure of the electrical and electronics 

systems in the area of the cockpit instrument 

panels. 

The lower windshield frames do not have 

drain provisions to prevent moisture or water 

run-off from the condensation of the 

windshields from being trapped. The 

consequences of trapped water in the lower 

windshield frames can result in unsafe 

conditions, as noted above. This Directive 

mandates the installation of a drain system 

for the lower windshield frames. 

For Model DHC–8–401 and –402 

airplanes, the installation also includes 

a related investigative action, and 

corrective actions if necessary. The 

related investigative action is an 

inspection for corrosion of the anchor 

nuts and window frame. Corrective 

actions include replacing any corroded 

anchor nut with a new or serviceable 

anchor nut, or contacting the 

manufacturer for repair instructions and 

doing the repair. You may obtain further 

information by examining the MCAI in 

the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Bombardier has issued Service 

Bulletins 84–53–43, dated April 27, 

2010 (for Model DHC–8–401 and –402 

airplanes, serial numbers 4001, 4003, 

4004, 4006, and 4008 through 4274 

inclusive); and 8–53–78, Revision C, 

dated April 29, 2010 (for Model DHC– 

8–102, –103, –106, –201, –202, –301, 

–311, and –315 airplanes, serial 

numbers 003 through 566 inclusive). 

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 191 products of U.S. 

registry. We also estimate that it would 

take about 20 work-hours per product to 

comply with the basic requirements of 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $85 per work-hour. Required 

parts would cost about $1,660 per 

product. Where the service information 

lists required parts costs that are 

covered under warranty, we have 

assumed that there will be no charge for 

these costs. As we do not control 

warranty coverage for affected parties, 

some parties may incur costs higher 

than estimated here. Based on these 

figures, we estimate the cost of the 

proposed AD on U.S. operators to be 

$641,760, or $3,360 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– 

1157; Directorate Identifier 2010–NM– 

137–AD. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71371 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by January 

7, 2011. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to the Bombardier, Inc. 

airplanes, certificated in any category, 

identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of 

this AD. 

(1) Model DHC–8–102, –103, –106, –201, 

–202, –301, –311, and –315, serial numbers 

003 through 566 inclusive. 

(2) Model DHC–8–401, and –402 airplanes, 

serial numbers 4001, 4003, 4004, 4006, and 

4008 through 4274 inclusive. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 56: Windows. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

There have been several in-service reports 

of finding trapped water on the bottom of the 

cockpit windshield frames (or lower 

windshield frames) that resulted in either 

corrosion or water ingress into the cockpit. In 

one occurrence, the trapped water caused 

severe corrosion of numerous anchor nuts 

that secure the windshield to the lower 

windshield frame, such that the intended 

fastening function was seriously 

compromised. Corrosion of the lower 

windshield frames, including the anchor nuts 

that secure the windshield to the aircraft 

structure, can result in a serious structural 

degradation possibly leading to the loss of 

the windshield during flight. Also, water 

could leak into the cockpit and cause either 

a malfunction or failure of the electrical and 

electronics systems in the area of the cockpit 

instrument panels. 

* * * * * 

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. 

Actions 

(g) Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first, install a drain system in the 

cockpit windshield lower frames, and do all 

applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions, in accordance With the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 8–53–78, Revision C, dated 

April 29, 2010 (for Model DHC–8–102, –103, 

–106, –201, –202, –301, –311, and –315 

airplanes); or 84–53–43, dated April 27, 2010 

(for Model DHC–8–401 and –402 airplanes); 

except where the service bulletins state to 

contact the manufacturer, contact the New 

York Aircraft Certification Office or 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) or 

its delegated agent. Do all applicable related 

investigative and corrective actions before 

further flight. 

Credit for Actions Accomplished in 

Accordance With Previous Service 

Information 

(h) For Models DHC–8–102, –103, –106, 

–201, –202, –301, –311, and –315 airplanes: 

Modification of the drain system is also 

acceptable for compliance with the 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, if 

done before the effective date of this AD, in 

accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 

8–53–78, dated December 23, 1999; Revision 

A, dated June 7, 2001; or Revision B, dated 

May 2, 2002. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/ 

or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(i) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office, 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: 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 current 

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 

be approximately 5 minutes per response, 

including the time for reviewing instructions, 

completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. All responses to this collection 

of information are mandatory. Comments 

concerning the accuracy of this burden and 

suggestions for reducing the burden should 

be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence 

Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

AES–200. 

Related Information 

(j) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness 

Directive CF–2010–16, dated May 18, 2010; 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 8–53–78, 

Revision C, dated April 29, 2010; and 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 84–53–43, dated 

April 27, 2010; for related information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 15, 2010. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29448 Filed 11–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0820; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NE–31–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Thielert 

Aircraft Engines GmbH Models TAE 

125–01, TAE 125–02–99, and TAE 125– 

02–114 Reciprocating Engines 

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) 

issued 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: 

Service experience has shown that a case 

of FADEC channel B manifold air pressure 

(MAP) sensor hose permeability is not always 

recognized as fault by the FADEC. The MAP 

value measured by the sensor may be lower 

than the actual pressure value in the engine 

manifold, and limits the amount of fuel 

injected into the combustion chamber and 

thus the available power of the engine. A 

change in FADEC software version 2.91 will 

change the logic in failure detection and in 

switching to channel B (no automatic switch 

to channel B if MAP difference between 

channel A and B is detected and lower MAP 

is at channel B). 

In addition, previous software versions 

allow—under certain conditions and on DA 

42 aircraft only—the initiation of a FADEC 

self test during flight that causes an engine 

in-flight shutdown. 

We are proposing this AD to prevent 

engine in-flight shutdown or power loss, 

possibly resulting in reduced control of 

the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by January 7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1