This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

43457 

Vol. 82, No. 179 

Monday, September 18, 2017 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2016–8177; Product 

Identifier 2015–NM–129–AD; Amendment 

39–19041; AD 2017–19–11] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc., Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Bombardier, Inc., Model BD–700–1A10 

and BD–700–1A11 airplanes. This AD 

was prompted by a determination that a 

certain task in the aircraft maintenance 

manual (AMM) will not accomplish the 

intent of a candidate certification 

maintenance requirement (CCMR) for 

detecting dormant failures of the pitch 

feel (PF) and rudder travel limiter 

actuator (RTLA) back-up modules. This 

AD requires doing an operational test of 

the flight control unit (FCU) back-up 

modules, and repair if necessary. We are 

issuing this AD to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective October 23, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: 

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–2016– 

8177; 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 AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

the Docket Office (telephone 800–647– 

5527) is Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, 

Avionics and Services Section, FAA, 

New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart 

Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 

11590; telephone 516–228–7301; fax 

516–794–5531. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model 

BD–700–1A10 and BD–700–1A11 

airplanes. The NPRM published in the 

Federal Register on July 15, 2016 (81 FR 

45997) (‘‘the NPRM’’). The NPRM was 

prompted by a determination that a 

certain task in the AMM will not 

accomplish the intent of a CCMR. This 

CCMR task tests the PF and RTLA backup modules in the FCU to detect 

dormant failures. The NPRM proposed 

to require doing an operational test of 

the FCU back-up modules, and repair if 

necessary. We are issuing this AD to 

detect and correct a dormant failure of 

both FCU back-up modules. This 

condition, in combination with other 

failures in the FCU, may result in the 

inability to maintain the minimum 

control requirements for the PF and 

RTLA, which could create hazardous 

flight control inputs during flight. 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation 

(TCCA), which is the aviation authority 

for Canada, has issued Canadian 

Airworthiness Directive CF–2015–06R1, 

dated April 22, 2015 (referred to after 

this as the Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the 

MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition 

for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD– 

700–1A10 and BD–700–1A11 airplanes. 

The MCAI states: 

It was discovered that the existing 

instruction in the Aircraft Maintenance 

Manual (AMM) Task 27–61–05–710–801 will 

not accomplish the intent of the * * * 

[Canadian Certification Maintenance 

Requirement (CCMR)] task number 27–61– 

05–201. This * * * [CCMR] task was 

required to test the Pitch Feel (PF) and 

Rudder Travel Limiter Actuator (RTLA) backup modules in the Flight Control Unit (FCU) 

to detect dormant failures. If not detected, a 

dormant failure of both FCU back-up 

modules, in combination with other failures 

in the FCU, may result in the inability to 

maintain the Minimum Control 

Requirements for the PF and RTLA, which 

could create hazardous flight control inputs 

during flight. 

The original issue of this [Canadian] AD 

mandated the performance of an operational 

test of the FCU back-up modules using the 

proper AMM task instructions [and repair if 

necessary]. 

Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is to 

correct the model number designation in the 

Applicability section. 

You may examine the MCAI in the 

AD docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2016– 

8177. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the NPRM and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Requests To Clarify Task Type 

Bombardier, Inc. (Bombardier), and 

NetJets Aviation Inc. (NetJets), requested 

that we clarify that task 27–61–05–201 

is not a CMR task. Bombardier stated 

that the task was misidentified as a 

certification maintenance requirement 

(CMR) task during the investigation into 

the cause of the identified unsafe 

condition. Bombardier further explained 

that task 27–61–05–201 is a candidate 

CMR, or CCMR. 

We agree that the task type should be 

clarified. We have confirmed that task 

27–61–05–201 is a CCMR task. 

Therefore, we have revised references to 

the task throughout this AD accordingly. 

Requests To Reference Revised Service 

Information 

Bombardier, Kacalp Flight Operation, 

and NetJets, requested that we revise the 

NPRM to reference revised service 

information. The commenters explained 

that the temporary revisions (TRs) 

referenced in the NPRM have been 

incorporated into the AMM, as have 

several subsequent revisions. The 

commenters asserted that the referenced 

TRs and certain subsequent AMM 

revisions are not available to operators. 

We partially agree with the 

commenters’ requests. We have 

confirmed that the TRs and subsequent 

AMM revisions referenced in the NPRM 

are no longer available. Therefore, we 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
43458 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

agree that this final rule needs to be 

revised. However, given the number of 

subsequent AMM revisions that have 

been issued for each of the AMMs since 

the NPRM was published, and the 

difficulties in obtaining the necessary 

material, we do not agree to reference 

subsequent AMM revisions in this final 

rule. Instead, we have revised paragraph 

(g) of this AD to specify doing the 

required actions in accordance with a 

method approved by the Manager, New 

York ACO Branch, FAA. We have also 

removed the content provided in 

paragraphs (h) and (i) of the proposed 

AD from this AD. We have redesignated 

subsequent paragraphs accordingly. 

Request To Revise the Compliance 

Time for the FCU Operational Test 

NetJets requested that we revise the 

proposed compliance time for FCUs 

with less than 3,000 total flight hours in 

paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD to 

the later of the following: 

• Prior to 3,000 total flight hours on 

the FCU; or 

• Within 15 months or 700 flight 

hours after the effective date of the AD, 

whichever occurs first. 

NetJets stated that, for an FCU with 

2,999 total flight hours on the effective 

date of the AD, the proposed AD would 

require compliance prior to further 

flight. NetJets pointed out that no 

justification was given for the more 

restrictive compliance time. Further, 

NetJets explained that paragraph (g)(1) 

of the proposed AD has a grace period 

of 15 months or 700 hours flight hours, 

whichever occurs first for an FCU that 

has accumulated 3,000 total flight hours 

or more. 

We partially agree with the 

commenter’s request. We agree that a 

grace period is needed for FCUs having 

accumulated less than 3,000 total flight 

hours as of the effective date of this AD, 

on which an operational test has not 

been completed. We do not agree that 

the commenter’s proposed grace period 

is adequate to address the unsafe 

condition. However, we have revised 

the compliance time in paragraph (g)(3) 

of this AD to provide a grace period of 

within 30 days after the effective date of 

this AD. 

Request To Correct Typographical 

Errors in Paragraph (h)(5) of the 

Proposed AD 

Bombardier requested that we correct 

a typographical error in paragraph (h)(5) 

of the proposed AD. 

We agree that there is a typographical 

error in paragraph (h)(5) of the proposed 

AD. However, as explained previously, 

we have removed the content of 

paragraph (h) of the proposed AD from 

this AD. Therefore, no change to this AD 

is necessary in this regard. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting this AD 

with the changes described previously 

and minor editorial changes. We have 

determined that these minor changes: 

• Are consistent with the intent that 

was proposed in the NPRM for 

correcting the unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM. 

We also determined that these 

changes will not increase the economic 

burden on any operator or increase the 

scope of this AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 76 

airplanes of U.S. registry. We also 

estimate that it will take about 3 workhours per product to comply with the 

basic requirements of this AD. The 

average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. 

Based on these figures, we estimate the 

cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be 

$19,380, or $255 per product. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates for the on-condition actions 

specified in this AD. 

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 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 AD will not 

have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD will 

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 that this AD: 

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. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 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 airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

2017–19–11 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 

39–19041; Docket No. FAA–2016–8177; 

Product Identifier 2015–NM–129–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective October 23, 2017. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., 

Model BD–700–1A10 and BD–700–1A11 

airplanes, certificated in any category, serial 

numbers 9002 and subsequent. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 27, Flight controls. 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43459 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by a determination 

that a certain task in the aircraft maintenance 

manual (AMM) will not accomplish the 

intent of a candidate certification 

maintenance requirement (CCMR). This 

CCMR task tests the pitch feel (PF) and 

rudder travel limiter actuator (RTLA) back-up 

modules in the flight control unit (FCU) to 

detect dormant failures. We are issuing this 

AD to detect and correct a dormant failure of 

both FCU back-up modules. This condition, 

in combination with other failures in the 

FCU, may result in the inability to maintain 

the minimum control requirements for the PF 

and RTLA, which could create hazardous 

flight control inputs during flight. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) FCU Operational Test 

(1) For airplanes with an FCU that has 

accumulated 3,000 total flight hours or more 

as of the effective date of this AD: Within 15 

months or 700 flight hours, whichever occurs 

first, after the effective date of this AD, do an 

operational test of the FCU back-up modules, 

in accordance with a method approved by 

the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA. 

(2) For airplanes with an FCU that has 

accumulated less than 3,000 total flight hours 

as of the effective date of this AD, and on 

which an operational test has been 

accomplished as specified in AMM task 27– 

61–05–710–801: Within 15 months or 700 

flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the 

effective date of this AD, do an operational 

test of the FCU back-up modules, in 

accordance with a method approved by the 

Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA. 

(3) For airplanes with an FCU that has 

accumulated less than 3,000 total flight hours 

as of the effective date of this AD, and on 

which an operational test has not been 

accomplished as specified in AMM task 27– 

61–05–710–801: Before the FCU accumulates 

3,000 total flight hours or within 30 days 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs later, perform an operational test of 

the FCU back-up modules, in accordance 

with a method approved by the Manager, 

New York ACO Branch, FAA. 

(h) Corrective Action 

If any FCU fails any operational test 

required by this AD: Before further flight, 

repair 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). 

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(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 certification office, send it to ATTN: 

Program Manager, Continuing Operational 

Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 

Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 

11590; telephone 516–228–7300; fax 516– 

794–5531. 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. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

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. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian 

Airworthiness Directive CF–2015–06R1, 

dated April 22, 2015, 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–2016–8177. 

(2) For more information about this AD, 

contact Assata Dessaline, Aerospace 

Engineer, Avionics and Services Section, 

FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart 

Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; 

telephone 516–228–7301; fax 516–794–5531. 

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference 

None. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 7, 2017. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19658 Filed 9–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1028 

Protection of Human Subjects 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On January 19, 2017, the 

Federal departments and agencies that 

are subject to the Federal Policy for the 

Protection of Human Subjects (referred 

to as the Common Rule) published a 

final rule amending the Common Rule. 

The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC or Commission) 

adopts the Common Rule. 

DATES: The rule is effective on January 

19, 2018. The compliance date for this 

rule, except for § 1028.114(b) 

(cooperative research), is January 19, 

2018. The compliance date for 

§ 1028.114(b) (cooperative research) is 

January 20, 2020. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alice Thaler, Associate Executive 

Director for Health Sciences, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 5 Research 

Place, Rockville, MD 20850: 301–987– 

2240, or by email to: athaler@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

18, 1991, the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) issued a 

rule setting forth the Common Rule 

requirements for the protection of 

human subjects. (56 FR 28003). The 

HHS regulations are codified at 45 CFR 

part 46. At that time, 15 other agencies, 

including CPSC, joined HHS in 

adopting a uniform set of rules for the 

protection of human subjects, identical 

to subpart A of 45 CFR part 46. The 

Common Rule is codified in CPSC’s 

regulations at 16 CFR part 1028. The 

basic provisions of the Common Rule 

include, among other things, 

requirements related to the review of 

human subjects research by an 

institutional review board, obtaining 

and documenting informed consent of 

human subjects, and submitting written 

assurance of institutional compliance 

with the Common Rule. 

On September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53933), 

HHS, on behalf of many of the same 

agencies that were signatories to the 

original Common Rule, proposed 

revisions to the Common Rule to 

modernize and strengthen the rule. 

Although CPSC was not a signatory to 

the Common Rule NPR, CPSC proposed 

to amend the Commission’s regulations 

at 16 CFR part 1028, to cross-reference 

the HHS regulations in 45 CFR part 46, 

subpart A. 80 FR 57548 (Sept. 24, 2015). 

In addition, CPSC directed that any 

comments on the proposed Common 

Rule be sent to the HHS docket for the 

proceeding at HHS–OPHS–2015–0008. 

On January 19, 2017, HHS issued a 

final rule on the Common Rule, which, 

among other things, establishes new 

requirements regarding the information 

that must be given to prospective 

research subjects as part of the informed 

consent process. 82 FR 7149. HHS also 

reviewed and addressed more than 

2,100 comments. Although CPSC 

instructed that any comment on the 

Common Rule be submitted in the HHS 

docket, 22 comments were submitted, 

instead, to the CPSC docket. CPSC 

reviewed the comments and determined 

that all of the substantive issues were 

addressed in the Common Rule final 

rule. 

Because CPSC’s current regulations 

on the protection of human subjects, 

codified at 16 CFR part 1028, follow the 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES