1560 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

petitioner states it has been working 

with the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency since 2002 to improve public 

information about existing tritium exit 

signs. 

Background and Summary of 

Petitioner’s Assertions 

The petitioner performed an 

evaluation on the lack of control of 

tritium exit signs and contamination of 

landfill leachate (the final report ‘‘Lack 

of Tritium Exit Signs Control and 

Contamination of Landfill Leachate,’’ 

dated July 2009, is included as part of 

the petition), and stated that it found 

that the majority of unaccounted for 

tritium exit signs are disposed of in 

solid waste landfills where they become 

potential sources of groundwater and 

surface water contamination. The 

petitioner states that a minority of 

tritium exit signs are returned to the 

manufacturer for recycling, or disposed 

of as low-level radioactive waste. 

The petitioner asserts that from the 

standpoint of the existing market, 

specific changes to new tritium exit 

signs will improve recognition and thus 

accountability. The labeling should be 

in several locations on the sign, with a 

larger font, and the expiration date 

should be distinctly legible to a fire or 

building inspector without taking down 

the sign. The petitioner also states that 

manufacturers do not always 

demonstrate accountability in 

dispensing exit signs to the proper 

recipients, and recipients are not 

informed of proper ownership and 

regulatory requirements provided in 

NUREG–1556, Vol 16, Appendix L, and 

10 CFR 31.5 of the NRC’s regulations. 

The online vendors do not always 

highlight that tritium is radioactive and 

that it has special ‘‘general licensing’’ 

requirements. The petitioner asserts that 

radiation trefoil should be displayed on 

the front and back of advertisements. 

The petitioner believes that, given the 

recent Walmart experience with the 

tritium exit signs, general licensing is 

successful only when the user 

understands that these devices are 

radioactive and subject to controls. 

Also, in light of the current general lack 

of controls, specific licensee 

manufacturers should be responsible for 

informing customers of the proper 

disposal of expired and used tritium 

exit signs. From the standpoint of solid 

waste management officials, the 

petitioner believes that the NRC should 

exercise its full regulatory authority to 

prevent the disposal of tritium exit signs 

in landfills. 

The petitioner further asserts that, 

though not in NRC’s purview, advances 

in photo-luminescent technology over 

the past decade have demonstrated 

effective alternate technology for places 

without electricity. Efficient Light 

Emitting Diodes with backup batteries 

are being used where electricity is 

available. These technologies together 

replace the need for tritium selfluminescent exit signs. The petitioner 

states that solid waste management 

officials simply want to stop tritium exit 

sign disposal in landfills. 

Proposed Action 

The petitioner requests that the NRC 

revise its regulations and/or guidance to 

improve the labeling and accountability 

of tritium exit signs. The petitioner 

states that it would ideally like to see 

tritium exit sign technology 

immediately replaced by alternative 

technologies. 

The petitioner requests that NRC 

revise its regulations and/or guidance to 

state: 

1. The labeling should be in several 

locations on the sign, with larger font. 

2. An expiration date should be 

distinctly legible to a fire or building 

inspector without taking down the sign. 

3. The radiation trefoil should be 

displayed on the front and back of 

advertisements. 

Also, the petitioner recommends a 

national collection effort with distinct 

milestones and goals should be 

undertaken to consolidate all expired 

and disused tritium exit signs. The 

petitioner requests that NRC organize a 

meeting with ASTSWMO and all 

interested stakeholders to set a new path 

forward on this issue. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day 

of January 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–347 Filed 1–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–1254; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–040–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; BAE 

Systems (Operations) Limited Model 

BAe 146 and Avro 146–RJ70A, 146– 

RJ85A, and 146–RJ100A 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: During the removal of the 

wing removable leading edge on a BAe 

146 aircraft for a repair (not related to 

the subject addressed by this AD), 

corrosion was found on the wing fixed 

leading edge structure. The 

investigation determined that the 

existing scheduled environmental and 

fatigue inspections would not have 

detected the corrosion or fatigue 

damage. Corrosion or fatigue damage in 

this area, if not detected and corrected, 

could lead to degradation of the 

structural integrity of the wing. 

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 February 26, 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 BAE Systems 

Regional Aircraft, 13850 McLearen 

Road, Herndon, Virginia 20171; 

telephone 703–736–1080; e-mail 

raebusiness@baesystems.com; Internet 

http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/ 

RegionalAircraft/index.htm. 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 

or 425–227–1152. 

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, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 1561 

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: 

Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–1175; fax (425) 227–1149. 

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–2009–1254; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–040–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 have lengthened the 30-day 

comment period for proposed ADs that 

address MCAI originated by aviation 

authorities of other countries to provide 

adequate time for interested parties to 

submit comments. The comment period 

for these proposed ADs is now typically 

45 days, which is consistent with the 

comment period for domestic transport 

ADs. 

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 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2009–0014, 

dated January 21, 2009 (referred to after 

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

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

During the removal of the wing removable 

leading edge on a BAe 146 aircraft for a 

repair (not related to the subject addressed by 

this AD), corrosion was found on the wing 

fixed leading edge structure. The 

investigation determined that the existing 

scheduled environmental and fatigue 

inspections would not have detected the 

corrosion or fatigue damage. 

Corrosion or fatigue damage in this area, if 

not detected and corrected, could lead to 

degradation of the structural integrity of the 

wing. 

For the reason described above, this AD 

requires repetitive inspections of the wing 

fixed leading edge and front spar structure 

for corrosion and/or fatigue damage [e.g., 

cracking] and repair, depending on findings. 

There are two alternative inspection 

methods: Method 1 is a combination of 

a detailed visual inspection and a visual 

inspection; Method 2 is a detailed visual 

inspection. You may obtain further 

information by examining the MCAI in 

the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited 

has issued Inspection Service Bulletin 

ISB.57–072, Revision 1, dated 

September 25, 2008. 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 1 product of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about 12 work-hours per product to 

comply with the basic requirements of 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on 

these figures, we estimate the cost of the 

proposed AD on U.S. operators to be 

$960. 

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, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

1562 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited: Docket 

No. FAA–2009–1254; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–040–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by February 

26, 2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to BAE SYSTEMS 

(Operations) Limited Model BAe 146–100A, 

–200A, and –300A series airplanes; and 

Model Avro 146–RJ70A, 146–RJ85A, and 

146–RJ100A airplanes; certificated in any 

category, all serial numbers. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 57: Wings. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

During the removal of the wing removable 

leading edge on a BAe 146 aircraft for a 

repair (not related to the subject addressed by 

this AD), corrosion was found on the wing 

fixed leading edge structure. The 

investigation determined that the existing 

scheduled environmental and fatigue 

inspections would not have detected the 

corrosion or fatigue damage. 

Corrosion or fatigue damage in this area, if 

not detected and corrected, could lead to 

degradation of the structural integrity of the 

wing. 

For the reason described above, this AD 

requires repetitive inspections of the wing 

fixed leading edge and front spar structure 

for corrosion and/or fatigue damage [e.g., 

cracking] and repair, depending on findings. 

There are two alternative inspection 

methods: Method 1 is a combination of a 

detailed visual inspection and a visual 

inspection; Method 2 is a detailed visual 

inspection. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, do the following 

actions. 

(1) At the applicable time identified in 

paragraph (f)(1)(i), (f)(1)(ii), or (f)(1)(iii) of 

this AD: Perform a detailed visual inspection 

and visual inspection (Method 1) or a 

detailed visual inspection (Method 2) for 

cracking and corrosion of the wing fixed 

leading edge and front spar structure, in 

accordance with paragraph 2.C. or 2.D., as 

applicable, of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) 

Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57– 

072, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008. 

(i) For airplanes with less than 9 years 

since date of issuance of the original 

airworthiness certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original export certificate of 

airworthiness as of the effective date of this 

AD: Within 18 months after the effective date 

of this AD. 

(ii) For airplanes with 9 years or more, but 

less than 15 years, since date of issuance of 

the original airworthiness certificate or the 

date of issuance of the original export 

certificate of airworthiness as of the effective 

date of this AD: Within 18 months after the 

effective date of this AD or within 16 years 

since date of issuance of the original 

airworthiness certificate or the date of 

issuance of the original export certificate of 

airworthiness, whichever occurs first. 

(iii) For airplanes with 15 years or more 

since entry into service as of the effective 

date of this AD: Within 6 months after the 

effective date of this AD. 

Note 1: Where BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) 

Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57– 

072, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008, 

refers to a ‘‘visual inspection,’’ this term 

describes an inspection using visual 

inspection equipment as defined in 

Appendix 3 of the service bulletin. In other 

BAE SYSTEMS instructions for continued 

airworthiness, including the MPD and the 

CPCP, such an inspection is referred to as a 

‘‘Special Detailed Inspection’’ (SDI). 

Note 2: At the discretion of the aircraft 

owner/operator, corrosion protection may be 

embodied on those areas subject to a detailed 

visual inspection, in accordance with 

paragraph 2.E. or paragraph 2.F. of BAE 

SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Inspection 

Service Bulletin ISB.57–072, Revision 1, 

dated September 25, 2008. Embodiment of 

enhanced corrosion protection in accordance 

with paragraph 2.E. BAE SYSTEMS 

(Operations) Limited Inspection Service 

Bulletin ISB.57–072, Revision 1, dated 

September 25, 2008, allows the interval of 

the repetitive inspection (as required by 

paragraph (f)(2) of this AD) to be extended in 

the area(s) of application in accordance with 

paragraph (f)(2)(i) or (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, as 

applicable. 

(2) After doing the initial inspection 

required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, at the 

applicable intervals specified in paragraph 

(f)(2)(i) or (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, accomplish the 

repetitive inspections of the wing fixed 

leading edge and front spar structure for 

cracking and corrosion in the ‘‘area of 

inspection’’ specified in Table 1 of paragraph 

1.D., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of BAE SYSTEMS 

(Operations) Limited Inspection Service 

Bulletin ISB.57–072, Revision 1, dated 

September 25, 2008. Do the inspections in 

accordance with paragraph 2.C. (Method 1) 

or paragraph 2.D. (Method 2) of BAE 

SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Inspection 

Service Bulletin ISB.57–072, Revision 1, 

dated September 25, 2008. Where previously 

applied, enhanced corrosion protection may 

then be re-applied, as an option, in 

accordance with paragraph 2.E. of BAE 

SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Inspection 

Service Bulletin ISB.57–072, Revision 1, 

dated September 25, 2008. Perform the 

repetitive inspections at the times specified 

in paragraph (f)(2)(i) or (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, 

as applicable. 

(i) For airplanes having enhanced 

corrosion protection that was applied during 

the previous inspection: Inspect at intervals 

not to exceed 144 months. 

(ii) For airplanes not having enhanced 

corrosion protection that was applied during 

the previous inspection: Inspect at intervals 

not to exceed 72 months. 

(3) After doing the initial inspection 

required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, at 

intervals not to exceed 36,000 flight cycles, 

accomplish fatigue inspections in accordance 

with paragraph 2.C. (Method 1) or paragraph 

2.D. (Method 2) of BAE SYSTEMS 

(Operations) Limited Inspection Service 

Bulletin ISB.57–072, Revision 1, dated 

September 25, 2008. 

(4) If any cracking or corrosion is found 

during any inspection required by this AD, 

before further flight, repair in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited 

Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57–072, 

Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008. 

(5) No repair terminates the inspection 

requirements of this AD. 

(6) Actions done before the effective date 

of this AD in accordance with BAE Systems 

(Operations) Limited Inspection Service 

Bulletin ISB.57–072, dated September 25, 

2008, are considered acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding actions 

specified in this AD. 

(7) Submit a report of the findings (both 

positive and negative) of the inspection 

required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD to 

Customer Liaison, Customer Support 

(Building 37), BAE Systems (Operations) 

Limited, Prestwick International Airport, 

Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland; fax +44 (0) 

1292 675432; e-mail 

raengliaison@baesystems.com, at the 

applicable time specified in paragraphs 

(f)(7)(i) and (f)(7)(ii) of this AD. The report 

must include the inspection results, a 

description of any discrepancies found, the 

airplane serial number, and the number of 

landings and flight hours on the airplane. 

(i) If the inspection was done on or after 

the effective date of this AD: Submit the 

report within 30 days after the inspection. 

(ii) If the inspection was done before the 

effective date of this AD: Submit the report 

within 30 days after the effective date of this 

AD. 

Note 3: The inspections required by this 

AD prevail over the Maintenance Review 

Board Report (MRBR), Maintenance Planning 

Document (MPD), Corrosion Prevention and 

Control Programme (CPCP), and 

Supplemental Structural Inspection 

Document (SSID) inspections defined in 

paragraph 1.C.(3) of BAE Systems 

(Operations) Limited Inspection Service 

Bulletin ISB.57–072, Revision 1, dated 

September 25, 2008. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 4: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: Where 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 1563 

the EASA AD refers to ‘‘since entry into 

service,’’ this AD specifies the date of 

issuance of the original airworthiness 

certificate or the date of issuance of the 

original export certificate of airworthiness. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 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: Todd Thompson, 

Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 

227–1175; fax (425) 227–1149. 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 

(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation 

Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2009– 

0014, dated January 21, 2009; and BAE 

SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Inspection 

Service Bulletin ISB.57–072, Revision 1, 

dated September 25, 2008; for related 

information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 

6, 2010. 

Stephen P. Boyd, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–381 Filed 1–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–1250; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–NM–169–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; BAE 

Systems (Operations) Limited Model 

BAe 146–100A, –200A, and –300A 

Series Airplanes, and Model Avro 146– 

RJ70A, 146–RJ85A, and 146–RJ100A 

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 that would 

supersede an existing AD. 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: In 1991, the UK 

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) issued 

AD 015–08–91 [which corresponds to 

FAA AD 93–01–11], requiring the 

accomplishment of inspections of, and 

in case of crack findings, corrective 

actions on, the wing top skin at rib ‘0’ 

of pre-modification HCM00851C BAe 

146 series aircraft in accordance with 

British Aerospace Service Bulletin (SB) 

57–41 dated 26 July 1991. Recently, 

BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd has 

determined that a revised inspection 

programme for the wing top skin and 

joint strap at rib ‘0’ on all BAe 146 and 

AVRO 146–RJ aircraft is necessary to 

assure the continued structural integrity 

of this area. Cracking of the wing centre 

section top skin, if undetected, could 

lead to structural failure and consequent 

loss of the aircraft. 

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 February 26, 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 BAE Systems 

Regional Aircraft, 13850 McLearen 

Road, Herndon, Virginia 20171; 

telephone 703–736–1080; e-mail 

raebusiness@baesystems.com; Internet 

http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/ 

RegionalAircraft/index.htm. 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 

or 425–227–1152. 

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: 

Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–1175; fax (425) 227–1149. 

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–2009–1250; Directorate Identifier 

2008–NM–169–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 have lengthened the 30-day 

comment period for proposed ADs that 

address MCAI originated by aviation 

authorities of other countries to provide 

adequate time for interested parties to 

submit comments. The comment period 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS