30742 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

activated by a dual engine shutdown, could 

also result in loss of hydraulic power for the 

flight controls [and consequent reduced 

ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe 

flight and landing of the airplane]. 

This [Canadian] directive mandates 

checking of the ADG and replacing the 

balance washer screws, if required. It also 

prohibits future installation of unmodified 

ADGs. 

Note: ADGs with Hamilton Sundstrand P/ 

Ns in the 761339 series and 1711405 are 

installed on the aircraft model listed in the 

Applicability section above in addition to 

Bombardier Inc. Models CL–600–2B19, CL– 

600–2C10 and CL–600–2D24. The latter three 

models are covered in a separate directive. 

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) At the earliest of the times identified in 

paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), and (g)(4) of 

this AD, do an inspection to determine the 

serial number of the installed ADG. A review 

of airplane maintenance records is acceptable 

in lieu of this inspection if the serial number 

of the ADG can be conclusively determined 

from that review. 

(1) Within 400 flight hours or 12 months 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first, or 

(2) Prior to the next in-flight or on-ground 

functional test of the ADG, whichever occurs 

first after the effective date of this AD, or 

(3) Prior to the next in-flight or on-ground 

operational test of the ADG, whichever 

occurs first after the effective date of this AD, 

or 

(4) Prior to the next scheduled ADG inflight deployment. 

(h) If the ADG serial number, as 

determined in paragraph (g) of this AD, is not 

listed in paragraph 1.A of the applicable 

Bombardier Service Bulletin listed in Table 

1 of this AD, no further action is required by 

this AD, except for paragraph (j) of this AD. 

TABLE 1—SERVICE BULLETINS

Model— Bombardier service 

bulletin— Dated— 

CL–600–2B16 (CL–604) airplanes ......................................................................................................... 604–24–021 ........... July 13, 2009. 

CL–600–2B16 (CL–605) airplanes ......................................................................................................... 605–24–001 ........... July 13, 2009. 

(i) If the ADG serial number determined in 

paragraph (g) of this AD is identified in 

paragraph 1.A. of the applicable service 

bulletin listed in Table 1 of this AD, before 

further flight, do an inspection to determine 

if the symbol ‘‘24–5’’ is marked on the ADG 

identification plate. A review of airplane 

maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of 

this inspection if the symbol ‘‘24–5’’ can be 

conclusively determined from that review. 

(1) If the symbol ‘‘24–5’’ is marked on the 

ADG identification plate, and the balance 

washer screws have already been replaced, 

no further action is required by this AD, 

except for paragraph (j) of this AD. 

(2) If the symbol ‘‘24–5’’ is not marked on 

the ADG identification plate, before further 

flight, replace all balance washer screws with 

new screws having part number MS24667–14 

and mark the ADG identification plate with 

symbol ‘‘24–5,’’ in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the 

applicable service bulletin listed in Table 1 

of this AD. 

(j) As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install on any airplane a 

replacement or spare ADG, Hamilton 

Sundstrand part number in the 761339 or 

1711405 series, having one of the serial 

numbers identified in paragraph 1.A. of the 

applicable service bulletin listed in Table 1 

of this AD, unless the ADG is identified with 

the symbol ‘‘24–5’’ on the identification plate. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: The 

MCAI specifies to inspect only airplanes 

having certain serial numbers that are part of 

the MCAI applicability. Because the affected 

part could be rotated onto any of the 

airplanes listed in the applicability, this AD 

requires the inspection be done on all 

airplanes. We have coordinated this 

difference with TCCA. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(k) 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 FAAapproved 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 

(l) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness 

Directive CF–2009–50, dated December 17, 

2009; and Bombardier Service Bulletins 604– 

24–021, dated July 13, 2009, and 605–24– 

001, dated July 13, 2009; for related 

information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 30, 

2010. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13230 Filed 6–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 65 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0567; Notice No. 

10–09] 

RIN 2120–AJ66 

Modification of the Process for 

Requesting a Waiver of the Mandatory 

Separation Age of 56 for Air Traffic 

Control Specialists 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) proposes to 

amend its regulations concerning the 

process for requesting a waiver of the 

mandatory separation age for Air Traffic 

Control Specialists in flight service 

stations, enroute or terminal facilities, 

and the David J. Hurley Air Traffic 

Control System Command Center. 

Under the proposal, Air Traffic Control 

Specialists would no longer be required 

to certify they have not been involved 

in an operational error (OE), operational 

deviation (OD), or runway incursion in 

the past 5 years. The proposed change 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30743 

reflects FAA Order JO 7210.56C, Change 

2, effective July 20, 2009, which 

removed any references to employee 

identification, training record entries, 

performance management, and returnto-duty actions that have been 

historically tied to reported events. The 

proposal would streamline the waiver 

process and bring it into conformance 

with current FAA OE and OD reporting 

policy. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before July 2, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2010–0567 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

For more information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of our docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

sending the comment (or signing the 

comment for an association, business, 

labor union, etc.). You may review 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement 

in the Federal Register published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time 

and follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket, or, the Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

proposed rule contact Kelly J. 

Neubecker, Airspace and Rules Group, 

Office of System Operations Airspace 

and AIM, AJR–33, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–9235; facsimile 

(202) 267–9328, e-mail 

Kelly.Neubecker@faa.gov. For legal 

questions concerning this proposed rule 

contact Anne Moore, Office of Chief 

Counsel, AGC–240, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–3123; facsimile 

(202) 267–7971. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in 

this preamble under the Additional 

Information section, we discuss how 

you can comment on this proposal and 

how we will handle your comments. 

Included in this discussion is related 

information about the docket, privacy, 

and the handling of proprietary or 

confidential business information. We 

also discuss how you can get a copy of 

related rulemaking documents. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, section 106, describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator to 

issue, rescind, and revise regulations. 

Under this authority, we are proposing 

to amend Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 103 in 14 CFR part 65 

(SFAR 103) by removing paragraph 

5.b.vii. The proposed change is within 

the scope of our authority and is a 

reasonable and necessary exercise of our 

statutory obligations. 

Background 

On January 23, 2004, H.R. 2673, 

Consolidated Appropriations 2004, 

became Public Law 108–199. Within the 

appropriations bill, there was a mandate 

that ‘‘not later than March 1, 2004, the 

Secretary of Transportation, in 

consultation with the Administrator of 

the Federal Aviation Administration, 

shall issue final regulations, pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. 8335, establishing an 

exemption process allowing individual 

Air Traffic Controllers to delay 

mandatory retirement until the 

employee reaches no later than 61 years 

of age.’’ On January 7, 2005, the 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration, published the 

final rule in the Federal Register, 14 

CFR part 65 (Docket No. FAA–2004– 

17334; SFAR No. 103, 70 FR 1634). 

The process for an Air Traffic Control 

Specialist (ATCS) to request a waiver 

from the mandatory separation age of 56 

is currently contained in SFAR 103 and 

reflected in the Human Resources Policy 

Bulletin #35, Waiver Process to 

Mandatory Separation at Age 56. This 

policy applies to all ATCSs and their 

first-level supervisors in flight service, 

enroute and terminal facilities, and at 

the David J. Hurley Air Traffic Control 

System Command Center covered under 

the mandatory separation provisions of 

5 U.S.C. 8335(a) and 8425(a). 

The regulation, as written, contains 

information contrary to air traffic policy 

under amended FAA Order JO 

7210.56C, Change 2, effective July 20, 

2009. Specifically, paragraph 5.b.vii. of 

SFAR 103 requires a controller to 

provide a statement that they have not 

been involved in an operational error 

(OE), operational deviation (OD), or 

runway incursion in the last 5 years 

while in a control position. This 

requirement is inconsistent with current 

air traffic orders developed specifically 

to foster a safety culture that encourages 

full and open reporting of safety 

information and focuses on determining 

why events occur, rather than placing 

blame. In support of this safety culture, 

FAA Order JO 7210.56C, Change 2 

removed all references to employee 

identification, training record entries, 

performance management, and returnto-duty actions that were historically 

tied to reported OE or OD events. Due 

to this change in policy, the reporting 

requirements of SFAR 103 5.b.vii. are 

now unverifiable. Continuing to require 

the statement in the waiver process 

serves no useful purpose. Therefore, the 

FAA is proposing to remove this 

reporting requirement. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. We 

have determined that there is no new 

information collection requirement 

associated with this proposed rule. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these proposed 

regulations. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
30744 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1This wage rate is based on 1657.7 hours. 2,080 

hours (52 weeks times 40 hours per week) minus 

422.3 hours (the number of hours a typical 

controller is not available to work) equals 1,657.7. 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this proposed rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this proposed rule. 

This proposed rule would moderately 

streamline the process for ATCs who are 

requesting a waiver of mandatory 

separation at age 56 by eliminating a 

paperwork obstacle. Currently, ATCSs 

need to provide a statement to certify 

that they have not been involved with 

an operational error (OE), operational 

deviation (OD), or runway incursion 

within the previous 5 years when 

submitting a request for a waiver of the 

mandatory separation at age 56. This 

proposed rule would eliminate this 

certification requirement by reducing 

the written information ATCSs must 

provide, resulting in a cost saving. 

We estimate ATCSs submit an average 

of 54 statements per year. ATCSs need 

approximately 5 minutes to prepare 

each statement, whereas air traffic 

managers need approximately 15 

minutes to review them. The ATCS’s 

salary including benefits expressed as 

an hourly wage rate is assumed to be 

$125 per hour; 1 and an air traffic 

manager’s hourly rate with benefits is 

assumed to be $155 per hour. 

Using the preceding information, the 

FAA estimates that the total cost savings 

of this proposed rule would be about 

$26,000 or $18,000 present value, as 

shown in table 1. 

FAA has, therefore, determined that 

this proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (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-forprofit 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. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP02JN10.309</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30745 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

This proposed rule would help extend 

the careers of experienced air traffic 

controllers and thus have no impact on 

private sector entities. Consequently, 

the FAA certifies that the proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this proposed rule 

and determined that it would have only 

a domestic impact and therefore no 

effect on international trade. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate; therefore, the 

requirements of Title II of the Act do not 

apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action 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, and, therefore, 

would not have federalism implications. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this proposed 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312(d) and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this NPRM 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We 

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the 

executive order because while it is not 

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures, it is 

not likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy. 

Additional Information 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. We also invite comments relating 

to the economic, environmental, energy, 

or federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

please send only one copy of written 

comments, or if you are filing comments 

electronically, please submit your 

comments only one time. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposed rulemaking. 

Before acting on this proposal, we will 

consider all comments we receive on or 

before the closing date for comments. 

We will consider comments filed after 

the comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change this 

proposal in light of the comments we 

receive. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents using the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the docket number, notice 

number, or amendment number of this 

rulemaking. 

You may access all documents the 

FAA considered in developing this 

proposed rule, including economic 

analyses and technical reports, from the 

internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in 

paragraph (1). 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 65 

Air Traffic Controllers, Aircraft, 

Aviation safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 65—CERTIFICATION: AIRMEN 

OTHER THAN FLIGHT 

CREWMEMBERS 

1. The authority citation for part 65 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 45102–45103, 

45301–45302. 

SFAR 103 [Amended] 

2. Amend SFAR 103 by removing and 

reserving paragraph 5.b.vii. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 27, 

2010. 

Edie Parish, 

Acting Director, System Operations Airspace 

& Aeronautical Information Management. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13221 Filed 6–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS