Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31705 

all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Antonio Bouza, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

4563. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 

(202) 586–9507. Email: Eric.Stas@

hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

22, 2018, the U.S. Department of Energy 

(‘‘DOE’’) published in the Federal 

Register a request for information (RFI) 

to consider whether to amend DOE’s 

test procedure for commercial watersource heat pumps (‘‘WSHPs’’). 83 FR 

29048. The document provided for 

submitting written comments and 

information by July 23, 2018. DOE has 

received a request from the AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (AHRI), dated June 23, 2018, to 

provide an additional 60 days to submit 

comments pertaining to the RFI for 

WSHP test procedures. This request can 

be found at https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=

EERE-2017-BT-TP-0029-0002. 

An extension of the comment period 

would allow additional time for AHRI 

and other interested parties to consider 

the issues presented in the RFI, gather 

any additional data and information, 

and submit comments to DOE. The RFI 

can be found at https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=

EERE-2017-BT-TP-0029-0001. In view of 

the request from AHRI, DOE has 

determined that a 60-day extension of 

the public comment period is 

appropriate. The comment period is 

extended to September 21, 2018. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 28, 

2018. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14606 Filed 7–6–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2018–0587; Product 

Identifier 2018–NM–054–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc., Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012–22– 

10, which applies to certain 

Bombardier, Inc., Model CL–600–2C10 

(Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) 

airplanes, Model CL–600–2D15 

(Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, 

Model CL–600–2D24 (Regional Jet 

Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL– 

600–2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) 

airplanes. AD 2012–22–10 requires 

repetitive inspections to determine that 

cotter pins are installed at affected 

wing-to-fuselage attachment joints and 

replacement if necessary. Since we 

issued AD 2012–22–10, we determined 

that additional nuts of the forward keel 

beam attachment joint should be 

inspected, and that repetitive 

inspections of certain wing-to-fuselage 

attachment joints are not necessary. 

This proposed AD would retain the 

initial inspection of the wing-to-fuselage 

attachment joints, and remove the 

repetitive inspections of all but the 

forward keel beam attachment joint. 

This proposed AD would also change 

the repetitive inspection interval for the 

forward keel beam attachment joint. We 

are proposing this AD to address the 

unsafe condition on these products. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by August 23, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, 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: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 

400 Coˆte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, 

Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody 

Customer Response Center North 

America toll-free telephone 1–866–538– 

1247 or direct-dial telephone 514–855– 

5000; fax 514–855–7401; email ac.yul@

aero.bombardier.com; internet http://

www.bombardier.com. You may view 

this referenced service information at 

the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 

2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 206–231– 

3195. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– 

0587; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this NPRM, 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: Aziz 

Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, 

New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart 

Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 

11590; telephone 516–228–7329; fax 

516–794–5531. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposal. Send your comments to 

an address listed under the ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2018–0587; Product Identifier 2018– 

NM–054–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 

We issued AD 2012–22–10, 

Amendment 39–17246 (77 FR 67267, 

November 9, 2012) (‘‘AD 2012–22–10’’), 

for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL– 

600–2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
31706 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

& 702) airplanes, Model CL–600–2D15 

(Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, 

Model CL–600–2D24 (Regional Jet 

Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL– 

600–2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) 

airplanes. AD 2012–22–10 requires 

repetitive inspections to determine that 

cotter pins are installed at affected 

wing-to-fuselage attachment joints and 

replacement if necessary. AD 2012–22– 

10 resulted from a report that certain 

wing-to-fuselage attachment nuts do not 

conform to the certification design 

requirements for dual locking features. 

We issued AD 2012–22–10 to prevent 

loss of wing-to-fuselage attachment 

joints, which could result in the loss of 

the wing. 

Actions Since AD 2012–22–10 Was 

Issued 

Since we issued AD 2012–22–10, we 

determined that additional nuts of the 

forward keel beam attachment joint 

should be inspected, and that repetitive 

inspections of certain wing-to-fuselage 

attachment joints are not necessary. 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation 

(TCCA), which is the aviation authority 

for Canada, issued Canadian AD CF– 

2012–10R1, dated January 22, 2018 

(referred to after this as the Mandatory 

Continuing Airworthiness Information, 

or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe 

condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., 

Model CL–600–2C10 (Regional Jet 

Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model 

CL–600–2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) 

airplanes, Model CL–600–2D24 

(Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and 

Model CL–600–2E25 (Regional Jet Series 

1000) airplanes. The MCAI states: 

The manufacturer has determined that 

wing-to-fuselage attachment nuts, part 

number (P/N) SH670–35635–1, SH670– 

35440–951, SH670–35440–3, SH670–35635– 

1, and 95136D–2412, installed at six 

attachment joint locations, do not conform to 

the certification design requirements for dual 

locking features. The nuts are not of the selflocking type as required and do not provide 

the frictional thread interference required to 

prevent the nut from backing off the bolt. As 

a result, only a single locking device, the 

cotter pin, is provided at these critical joints. 

In the case where a nut becomes loose, in 

combination with a missing or broken cotter 

pin, the attachment bolt at the wing-tofuselage joint could migrate and fall out. Loss 

of two attachment joints could potentially 

result in the loss of the wing. 

The original version of this [Canadian] AD 

[which corresponds to FAA AD 2012–22–10] 

mandated initial and repeat detailed visual 

inspections (DVIs) of each affected wing-tofuselage attachment joint to ensure that a 

cotter pin was installed. 

Design review and analysis of the 

inspection findings since the original issue of 

this [Canadian] AD have led us to determine 

that additional nuts at the forward keel beam 

joint should also be included in the 

inspection and that the repetitive inspection 

of some wing-to-fuselage attachment joints is 

not required. This [Canadian] AD maintains 

the initial inspection requirements [for 

missing or failed (. . .) cotter pins] for six 

attachment joint locations, and removes the 

repetitive inspection requirements for all but 

the forward keel beam attachment joint. This 

[Canadian] AD also requires a different 

repetitive inspection interval, and the 

[Canadian] AD applicability has been 

changed for the initial inspection to account 

for changes made in production. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service 

Bulletin 670BA–53–042, Revision B, 

dated October 20, 2017. This service 

information describes procedures for 

detailed inspections of the wing-tofuselage attachment joints, and of the 

attachment nuts at the forward keel 

beam attachment joint for missing or 

failed cotter pins. This service 

information is reasonably available 

because the interested parties have 

access to it through their normal course 

of business or by the means identified 

in the ADDRESSES section. 

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 these same 

type design. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 274 airplanes of U.S. registry. We 

estimate the following costs to comply 

with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REQUIRED ACTIONS

Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

11 work-hours × $85 per hour = $935 ........................................................................................ $100 $1,035 $283,590

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates for the on-condition actions 

specified in this proposed AD. We have 

no way of determining the number of 

aircraft that may need these actions. 

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. 

This proposed AD is issued in 

accordance with authority delegated by 

the Executive Director, Aircraft 

Certification Service, as authorized by 

FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance 

with that order, issuance of ADs is 

normally a function of the Compliance 

and Airworthiness Division, but during 

this transition period, the Executive 

Director has delegated the authority to 

issue ADs applicable to transport 

category airplanes to the Director of the 

System Oversight Division. 

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. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31707 

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), 

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in 

Alaska, and 

4. 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. 

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 

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

2012–22–10, Amendment 39–17246 (77 

FR 67267, November 9, 2012), and 

adding the following new AD: 

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA–2018– 

0587; Product Identifier 2018–NM–054– 

AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by August 23, 

2018. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD replaces AD 2012–22–10, 

Amendment 39–17246 (77 FR 67267, 

November 9, 2012) (‘‘AD 2012–22–10’’). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to the airplanes identified 

in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this 

AD, certificated in any category. 

(1) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL–600–2C10 

(Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) 

airplanes, serial numbers 10002 and 

subsequent. 

(2) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL–600–2D15 

(Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes and Model 

CL–600–2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) 

airplanes, serial numbers 15001 and 

subsequent. 

(3) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL–600–2E25 

(Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, serial 

numbers 19001 and subsequent. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 57, Wings. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by a report that 

certain wing-to-fuselage attachment nuts do 

not conform to the certification design 

requirements for dual locking features, and a 

determination that additional nuts of the 

forward keel beam attachment joint should 

be inspected, and that repetitive inspections 

of certain wing-to-fuselage attachment joints 

are not necessary. We are issuing this AD to 

address loss of the wing-to-fuselage 

attachment joints, which could result in loss 

of the wing, and consequent reduced, or 

complete loss of, controllability of the 

airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Initial Inspection of the Wing-to-Fuselage 

Attachment Joint 

For airplanes identified in paragraphs 

(g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD: Within 

3,000 flight hours or 18 months, whichever 

occurs first after December 14, 2012 (the 

effective date of AD 2012–22–10), perform a 

detailed inspection for missing or failed 

cotter pins at each affected wing-to-fuselage 

attachment joint, in accordance with Part A 

through Part C of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 

670BA–53–042, Revision B, dated October 

20, 2017. 

(1) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL–600–2C10 

(Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) 

airplanes, serial numbers 10002 through 

10337 inclusive. 

(2) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL–600–2D15 

(Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes and Model 

CL–600–2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) 

airplanes, serial numbers 15001 through 

15299 inclusive. 

(3) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL–600–2E25 

(Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, serial 

numbers 19001 through 19037 inclusive. 

(h) Initial and Repetitive Inspections of the 

Attachment Nuts at the Forward Keel Beam 

Attachment Joint 

Within the compliance time specified in 

figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD: Perform 

a detailed inspection of the attachment nuts 

at the forward keel beam attachment joint for 

missing or failed cotter pins, in accordance 

with Part D of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 

670BA–53–042, Revision B, dated October 

20, 2017. Repeat the inspection thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 8,800 flight hours, in 

accordance with Part E of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 670BA–53–042, Revision B, 

dated October 20, 2017. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
31708 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 131 / Monday, July 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

(i) Corrective Action 

If any cotter pin is found missing or failed 

during any inspection required by this AD: 

Before further flight, replace the cotter pin 

using a method approved by the Manager, 

New York ACO Branch FAA; or Transport 

Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or 

Bombardier, Inc.’s TCCA Design Approval 

Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, 

the approval must include the DAOauthorized signature. 

(j) Credit for Previous Actions 

(1) This paragraph provides credit for the 

initial inspections required by paragraphs (g) 

and (h) of this AD, if the inspection was 

performed before the effective date of this 

AD, using Bombardier Service Bulletin 

670BA–53–042, dated December 21, 2011; or 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA–53–042, 

Revision A, dated April 27, 2012. 

(2) For Model CL–600–2C10 airplanes, S/ 

Ns 10002 through 10337 inclusive: This 

paragraph provides credit for the initial 

inspection required by paragraph (h) of this 

AD, if the inspection was performed before 

the effective date of this AD, using 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA–53–042, 

dated December 21, 2011; or Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 670BA–53–042, Revision A, 

dated April 27, 2012. 

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO 

Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the certification office, 

send it to ATTN: Program Manager, 

Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New 

York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, 

Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; 

telephone: 516–228–7300; fax: 516–794– 

5531. 

(i) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 

2012–22–10, are approved as AMOCs for the 

corresponding provisions in paragraphs (g) 

and (h) of this AD. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain corrective 

actions from a manufacturer, the action must 

be accomplished using a method approved 

by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, 

FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.’s TCCA 

DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval 

must include the DAO-authorized signature. 

(l) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian 

AD CF–2012–10R1, dated January 22, 2018, 

for related information. This MCAI may be 

found in the AD docket on the internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2018–0587. 

(2) For more information about this AD, 

contact Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, 

FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart 

Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; 

telephone 516–228–7329; fax 516–794–5531. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 CoˆteVertu Road West, Dorval, Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, 

Canada; Widebody Customer Response 

Center North America toll-free telephone 1– 

866–538–1247 or direct-dial telephone 514– 

855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; email ac.yul@

aero.bombardier.com; internet http://

www.bombardier.com. You may view this 

service information at the FAA, Transport 

Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des 

Moines, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

206–231–3195. 

Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 

27, 2018. 

Dionne Palermo, 

Acting Director, System Oversight Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14506 Filed 7–6–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2018–0500; Airspace 

Docket No. 18–AGL–14] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Proposed Amendment of Class E 

Airspace; Hillsdale, MI 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

amend Class E airspace extending 

upward from 700 feet above the surface 

at Hillsdale Municipal Airport, 

Hillsdale, MI. The FAA is proposing 

this action as a result of an airspace 

review caused by the decommissioning 

of the Jackson and Litchfield VHF 

omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation 

aids, which provided navigation 

information for the instrument 

procedures at this airport, as part of the 

VOR Minimum Operational Network 

(MON) Program. The geographic 

coordinates of the airport would also be 

updated to coincide with the FAA’s 

aeronautical database. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALSEP09JY18.003</GPH>