Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135 and -145 Series Airplanes, 8028-8032 [05-2842]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
8028
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 32 / Thursday, February 17, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February
10, 2005.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–2964 Filed 2–16–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2003–NM–237–AD; Amendment
39–13977; AD 2005–04–05]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Empresa
Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model EMB–135 and –145
Series Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a
new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain EMBRAER Model
EMB–135 and –145 series airplanes.
This AD requires repetitive detailed
inspections of the oil in the air turbine
starter (ATS) to determine the quantity
of the oil and the amount of debris
contamination in the oil. If the oil
quantity is incorrect or if excessive
debris is found in the oil, this AD
requires replacement of the ATS with a
new or serviceable ATS, and continued
repetitive detailed inspections. This AD
also requires eventual replacement of
each ATS with a new, improved ATS,
which constitutes terminating action for
the repetitive detailed inspections. This
action is necessary to prevent a flash fire
in the nacelle, which would result in
the flightcrew shutting down the engine
during flight, and consequent reduced
controllability of the airplane. This
action is intended to address the
identified unsafe condition.
DATES: Effective March 24, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the
regulations is approved by the Director
of the Federal Register as of March 24,
2005.
ADDRESSES: The service information
referenced in this AD may be obtained
from Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica
S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP
12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP,
Brazil. This information may be
examined at the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport
Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:43 Feb 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call (202) 741–
6030, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98055–
4056; telephone (425) 227–1175; fax
(425) 227–1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A
proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to
include an airworthiness directive (AD)
that is applicable to certain EMBRAER
Model EMB–135 and –145 series
airplanes was published in the Federal
Register on February 19, 2004 (69 FR
7707). That action proposed to require
repetitive detailed inspections of the oil
in the air turbine starter (ATS) to
determine the quantity of the oil and the
amount of debris contamination in the
oil. If the oil quantity was incorrect or
if excessive debris was found in the oil,
that proposal would have required
replacement of the ATS with a new or
serviceable ATS having the same part
number, and continued repetitive
detailed inspections. That proposal
would also have required eventual
replacement of each ATS with a new
improved ATS having a new part
number, which would constitute
terminating action for the repetitive
detailed inspections.
Actions Since Proposed AD Was Issued
Since we issued the proposed AD, we
have determined that the Departmento
de Aviacao Civil (DAC), which is the
airworthiness authority for Brazil,
issued two Brazilian airworthiness
directives that address that same unsafe
condition. The DAC issued Brazilian
airworthiness directive 2001–09–04,
dated October 10, 2001. The DAC also
issued Brazilian airworthiness directive
2003–07–01, Revision 01, dated
December 23, 2003. We issued a parallel
proposed AD for each Brazilian
airworthiness directive. One proposed
AD, Directorate Identifier 2002–NM–
352–AD, was published in the Federal
Register on December 18, 2003 (68 FR
243). The other proposed AD,
Directorate Identifier 2003–NM–237–
AD, was published in the Federal
Register on February 19, 2004 (69 FR
7707).
Upon further evaluation, and based
on comments received in response to
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the proposed AD with Directorate
Identifier 2002–NM–352–AD, we have
determined that it is in the best interest
of the FAA and the U.S. operators to
combine the requirements of both of our
proposed ADs into this AD. The
requirements in this AD adequately
address the identified unsafe condition
specified in 2002–NM–352–AD.
Accordingly, the proposed AD with
Directorate Identifier 2002–NM–352–AD
will be withdrawn after this AD is
issued. The DAC and the airplane
manufacturer support our decision.
Comments
Interested persons have been afforded
an opportunity to participate in the
making of this amendment. Due
consideration has been given to the
comments received.
Request To Allow Part Number (P/N)
3505910–6 as a Replacement Part
Three commenters request that air
turbine starter (ATS) P/N 3505910–6 be
included in the proposed AD as an
acceptable replacement part. (The
proposed AD states that an affected ATS
should be replaced with a new or
serviceable ATS having P/N 3505910–4
or P/N 3505910–5.)
We agree with the commenters’
requests. We have revised the Summary
section of this AD by deleting the text
that states that the ATS should be
replaced with an ATS having the same
part number. Paragraph (d) of this AD
has been revised to include P/N
3505910–6 as an additional acceptable
replacement part.
Request To Allow Replacement of ATS
Within 50 Hours Instead of Before
Further Flight
Two commenters request that the
proposed AD be revised so that, if the
results of an inspection of the oil
indicate that the ATS should be
replaced, operators may continue to use
that ATS for an additional 50 flight
hours before doing the replacement.
(Paragraph (d) of the proposed AD
specifies that that the ATS should be
replaced prior to further flight.) One
commenter states that the 50-hour grace
period should be acceptable because
Brazilian airworthiness directive 2003–
07–01R1, dated December 23, 2003,
allows ATS units that don’t show
evidence of wear or failure to go back
into service for 50 flight hours before
replacement. The commenter also states
that, based on service history, the
additional 50 flight hours is very
conservative. The other commenter
states that EMBRAER Service Bulletin
145–80–0005, Revision 02, dated
September 16, 2003, allows a grace
E:\FR\FM\17FER1.SGM
17FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 32 / Thursday, February 17, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
period of 50 flight hours, and that
operators incorporating that service
bulletin have not reported failures or
service interruptions within 50 hours of
the service inspection.
We agree to allow a 50-hour grace
period for ATSs that meet the criteria
specified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin
145–80–0005, Revision 02. We
misinterpreted the Brazilian
airworthiness directive and, in the
proposed AD, identified the 50-hour
grace period as a difference between the
proposed AD and the Brazilian
airworthiness directive. We have
determined that a 50-hour grace period
will allow airplanes to continue to
operate without compromising safety.
Paragraph (d) of this AD has been
revised to specify that an ATS should be
replaced at the times specified in the
applicable service bulletin.
Request To Change Compliance Time
for Initial Inspection
One commenter requests that the FAA
revise the compliance time for the
initial detailed inspection specified in
paragraph (b) of the proposed AD. The
commenter provides two suggestions for
making this change. The first suggestion
is to either delete the statement
‘‘whichever comes first’’ or change that
statement to ‘‘whichever comes later.’’
The second suggestion is to change the
initial inspection threshold from
‘‘Within 200 flight hours or 90 days’’ to
‘‘Within 500 flight hours or 180 days.’’
The commenter states that it is already
accomplishing the intent of the
proposed AD. Since August 2003, the
commenter has repetitively inspected
the ATS in its fleet of airplanes at
intervals of 500 flight hours. The
commenter contends that, by changing
the threshold for the initial inspection
in the proposed AD, the FAA and the
commenter would conserve resources
regarding the processing of requests for
alternative methods of compliance
(AMOCs) related to the compliance time
for the initial detailed inspection.
We do not agree with the commenter’s
request to change the threshold for the
initial detailed inspection. In
developing an appropriate threshold for
this AD, we considered the safety
implications, the manufacturer’s
recommendations, the Brazilian
airworthiness authority’s
recommendations, and operators’
maintenance schedules. Under the
provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD,
however, we may consider requests for
adjustments to this compliance time if
data are submitted to substantiate that
such an adjustment would provide an
acceptable level of safety.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:43 Feb 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
Request To Include Secondary Test for
Certain ATSs
One commenter notes that Brazilian
airworthiness directive 2003–07–01R1
includes a provision that a new ATS
should not be replaced during the first
400 hours of operation after installation
if oil system debris is detected during an
inspection. The proposed AD does not
include that provision. The commenter
states that metallic debris is normal
during the ‘‘wear-in’’ of a new ATS.
Such debris does not necessarily
indicate abnormal wear or imminent
failure of the part. The commenter also
states that EMBRAER Service Bulletins
145–80–0005, Revision 02, dated
September 16, 2003; and 145LEG–80–
0001, Revision 01, dated April 10, 2003;
include a secondary test (referred to as
a ‘‘penalty run’’ in the service bulletins)
that should be conducted on new ATSs
that show metallic particles on the
magnetic drain plug. (Those service
bulletins were cited in the proposed AD
as acceptable sources of service
information for inspecting the ATS.)
The results of the secondary test will
help operators determine if metal debris
is a result of the normal ‘‘wear-in’’
period or abnormal ATS wear, or is from
a different part of the engine.
We agree that, if an ATS has less than
400 flight hours since new or last
overhaul, operators should be allowed
the option of performing the secondary
test. This option allows airplanes to
continue to operate without
compromising safety. Paragraph (d) of
this AD has been revised to allow
operators the option of replacing the
ATS before further flight or performing
the secondary test in accordance with
the applicable service bulletin.
Request To Include Additional Service
Information
One commenter requests that the
proposed AD be revised to require
operators to incorporate Rolls-Royce
Service Bulletin AE 3007A–72–253,
dated September 13, 2002. The
commenter states that the Rolls-Royce
service bulletin includes procedures for
installing a vented quick access drain
(QAD) adapter. The QAD adapter
alleviates a contributing cause of the
ATS failure.
We partially agree. We agree that
installing the QAD adapter alleviates a
contributing cause of the ATS failure;
however, we will not revise this AD to
require operators to perform the actions
in the Rolls-Royce service bulletin. The
parallel Brazilian airworthiness
directive does not require operators to
incorporate the Rolls-Royce service
bulletin, and the associated EMBRAER
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8029
service bulletins include procedures for
operators that have incorporated the
Rolls-Royce service bulletin and
procedures for operators that have not
incorporated the Rolls-Royce service
bulletin. Also, operators may
voluntarily incorporate the Rolls-Royce
service bulletin. No change has been
made to this AD regarding this issue.
The same commenter states that
requiring the EMBRAER EMB–135 and
–145 fleet to install P/N 3505910–6
within two years after the effective date
of the proposed AD is an unnecessary
hardship given the improvements made
by incorporating the Rolls-Royce service
bulletin. The commenter states that the
procedures in the Rolls-Royce service
bulletin include removing the drain cap,
which would attenuate the oil migration
and seal damage, making the potential
for a low-oil/backdrive failure much less
likely. The commenter notes that it took
operators almost a year to accomplish
the ‘‘simple’’ Rolls-Royce service
bulletin. We infer that the commenter
requests an extension of the compliance
time specified in paragraph (e) of the
proposed AD.
We do not agree to extend the
compliance time in paragraph (e) of this
AD. Although the preventative measures
provided in the Rolls-Royce service
bulletin address the primary cause of
backdrive events, other contributing
causes of backdrive events still exist.
Also, the commenter did not provide
data that substantiate that all operators
have incorporated the Rolls-Royce
service bulletin. Furthermore, the
parallel Brazilian airworthiness
directive specifies that all ATS P/Ns
3505910–4 and –5 should be replaced
with ATS, P/N 3505910–6, before March
1, 2006. Since we do not use calendar
dates in the compliance times for our
ADs, we considered the safety
implications, the manufacturer’s
recommendations, and the Brazilian
airworthiness authority’s
recommendations, and determined that
accomplishment of the part replacement
within 26 months after the effective date
of the AD represents an appropriate
interval of time for affected airplanes to
continue to operate without
compromising safety. However, under
the provisions of paragraph (g) of this
AD, we may consider requests for
adjustments to the compliance time if
data are submitted to substantiate that
such an adjustment would provide an
acceptable level of safety.
Request To Clarify Unsafe Condition
Two commenters mention that the
unsafe condition statement in the
proposed AD is inaccurate. One
commenter states that the unsafe
E:\FR\FM\17FER1.SGM
17FER1
8030
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 32 / Thursday, February 17, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
condition statement implies that a fire
in an engine section is a direct cause of
the engine shutdown, when actually a
fire started by an ATS would be
detected by the fire detection system
and annunciated to the flightcrew. The
engine shutdown is a result of the
flightcrew’s response to the fire. The
other commenter states that the phrases
‘‘prevent a flash fire’’ and ‘‘cause the
engine to shut down’’ are incorrect. The
commenter notes that the improved
ATS, P/N 3505910–6, prevents ATS
backdrive failures. The commenter
states that backdrive failures do not
necessarily result in a flash fire or
always result in engine shutdown. We
infer that the commenters are requesting
that the unsafe condition statement in
the proposed AD be revised.
We agree that the unsafe condition
statement implies that a fire in an
engine section directly causes an engine
shutdown. We do not agree that the
phrases ‘‘prevent a flash fire’’ and
‘‘cause the engine to shut down’’ are
incorrect. The end result of the unsafe
condition is the possibility of a flash fire
and an engine shutdown. The intent of
this AD is to require operators to install
the new, improved ATS, P/N 3505910–
6, which prevents the ATS backdrive
failures. Therefore, until operators
install P/N 3505910–6, the possibility of
a flash fire and engine shutdown still
exists. The unsafe condition statement
in this AD has been revised to state: ‘‘To
prevent a flash fire in the nacelle, which
would result in the flightcrew shutting
down the engine during flight, and
consequent reduced controllability of
the airplane.’’
Request To Allow Alternative Method
for Repetitive Inspections
One commenter states that it services
the ATS oil system of its fleet every
routine check (7 days), as specified in
Subtask 80–10–01–610–001–A00, dated
August 28, 2004, in Chapter 80–10–01
of the EMBRAER EMB–145 Aircraft
Maintenance Manual (AMM). The
commenter asks if it is acceptable to the
FAA to continue this practice. We infer
that the commenter is requesting to
perform the repetitive inspections in the
AMM instead of the repetitive detailed
inspections specified in paragraph (b) of
this AD.
It is acceptable for the commenter to
continue doing the procedures specified
in Subtask 80–10–01–610–001–A00.
However, after reviewing the subtask,
we have determined that those
procedures do not satisfy the
requirements of this AD. The
procedures in the subtask are for
determining the oil level of the ATS, not
for inspecting the oil in the ATS for
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:43 Feb 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
debris. As provided by paragraph (g) of
this AD, the commenter may apply for
an AMOC.
Request To Omit Repetitive Inspections
One commenter supports the issuance
of the proposed AD but raises several
questions. The commenter questions the
purpose of including repetitive
inspections in the proposed AD. The
commenter also asks if 180 ‘‘hours’’
between inspections is too much time.
The commenter notes that if abrasive
particles become suspended in a
lubricating substance within the first 90
days, there is an ineffective lubrication
system for 90 more days. The
commenter also proposes several
solutions for addressing the unsafe
condition of debris in the oil of the ATS.
The commenter states that requiring the
immediate replacement of the ATS
when the AD is published would be
more cost effective than requiring
repetitive inspections and eventual
replacement of the ATS. The commenter
states that the immediate part
replacement would also be safer. We
infer that the commenter is requesting
that the proposed AD be revised to omit
the repetitive inspections specified in
paragraph (b) of that AD, and to
mandate only the replacement of any
ATS having P/N 3505910–4 or P/N
3505910–5 with an ATS having P/N
3505910–6, as specified in paragraph (e)
of that AD. We also infer that the
commenter is requesting a reduction of
the compliance time for the repetitive
inspection intervals.
We do not agree that the repetitive
inspections of the ATS oil should be
deleted from paragraph (e) of this AD,
or that the compliance time for the
repetitive inspection intervals should be
reduced. Also, the repetitive inspection
interval specified in paragraph (b) of
this AD is 180 days, not 180 hours. The
commenter did not provide any data to
substantiate the termination of the
repetitive inspections of the oil in the
ATS, or the reduction of the compliance
time for the repetitive inspection
intervals. Both the Brazilian
airworthiness directive and EMBRAER
Service Bulletins 145–80–0005,
Revision 02, dated September 16, 2003;
and 145LEG–80–0001, Revision 01,
dated April 10, 2003; include provisions
for repetitive inspections. The Brazilian
airworthiness directive mandates the
detailed inspections at intervals of 500
flight hours or 180 days, whichever
occurs first. We have determined that
the repetitive inspections are needed to
ensure the continued operational safety
of the affected airplanes. No change has
been made to this AD regarding these
issues.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Request To Delete Note Regarding
Submission of Information
One commenter states that the
proposed AD mentions that Honeywell
Service Bulletin 3505910–80–1789,
dated August 19, 2003, specifies to
submit certain information to
Honeywell. (That service bulletin was
referenced as an additional source of
service information in the proposed
AD.) The commenter states that Service
Bulletin 3505910–80–1789 has been
revised and no longer requests operators
to submit information to Honeywell. We
infer that the commenter is requesting
that the references to submitting certain
information to Honeywell be deleted
from the proposed AD.
We do not agree to revise this AD
regarding the submission of information
to Honeywell. To date, we have not
received a copy of the revised service
bulletin and to our knowledge the
revised service bulletin has not been
issued. Furthermore, when the revised
service bulletin is issued, the
requirements of this AD will not be
affected by the omission of the request
to submit information to Honeywell.
Since the Honeywell service bulletin is
cited as a secondary source of service
information in this AD, it is referenced
in a note. Notes in ADs provide
additional information only and do not
include requirements. No change has
been made to this AD regarding this
issue.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available
data, including the comments noted
above, we have determined that air
safety and the public interest require the
adoption of the rule with the changes
described previously. We have
determined that these changes will
neither increase the economic burden
on any operator nor increase the scope
of the AD.
Cost Impact
We estimate that 459 airplanes of U.S.
registry will be affected by this AD, that
it will take approximately 1 work hour
per airplane to inspect the oil in the
ATS, and that the average labor rate is
$65 per work hour. Based on these
figures, the cost impact of the AD on
U.S. operators is estimated to be
$29,835, or $65 per airplane, per
inspection cycle.
We estimate it will take
approximately 2 work hours per
airplane to replace the ATS, and that the
average labor rate is $65 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the cost impact
of the replacement on U.S operators is
estimated to be $59,670, or $130 per
airplane.
E:\FR\FM\17FER1.SGM
17FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 32 / Thursday, February 17, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
The cost impact figures discussed
above are based on assumptions that no
operator has yet accomplished any of
the requirements of this AD action, and
that no operator would accomplish
those actions in the future if this AD
were not adopted. The cost impact
figures discussed in AD rulemaking
actions represent only the time
necessary to perform the specific actions
actually required by the AD. These
figures typically do not include
incidental costs, such as the time
required to gain access and close up,
planning time, or time necessitated by
other administrative actions.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Docket at the location provided under
the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration
amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
I
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
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.
Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the
agency’s authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated
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
AD.
I
Regulatory Impact
Service Bulletin Reference
(a) The term ‘‘service bulletin,’’ as used in
this AD, means the Accomplishment
Instructions of the following service
bulletins, as applicable:
(1) For the detailed inspection and
replacements specified in paragraphs (b), (c)
and (d) of this AD: For Model EMB–135 BJ
series airplanes, EMBRAER Service Bulletin
145LEG–80–0001, Revision 01, dated April
10, 2003; and for all other affected airplanes,
EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–80–0005,
Revision 02, dated September 16, 2003.
(2) For the replacement specified in
paragraph (e) of this AD: For Model EMB–
135 BJ series airplanes, EMBRAER Service
Bulletin 145LEG–80–0002, dated October 2,
2003; and for all other affected airplanes,
EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–80–0006,
dated October 2, 2003.
Note 1: These service bulletins refer to
Honeywell Service Bulletin 3505910–80–
1789, dated August 19, 2003, as an additional
source of service information. The Honeywell
service bulletin is included in the EMBRAER
service bulletins. Although this Honeywell
service bulletin specifies to submit certain
information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include such a requirement.
The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is
determined that this final rule does not
have federalism implications under
Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that this action (1) is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
‘‘significant rule’’ under 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. A final evaluation has
been prepared for this action and it is
contained in the Rules Docket. A copy
of it may be obtained from the Rules
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:43 Feb 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding
the following new airworthiness
directive:
I
2005–04–05 Empresa Brasileira De
Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer):
Amendment 39–13977. Docket 2003–
NM–237–AD.
Applicability: Model EMB–135 and –145
series airplanes, with air turbine starter
(ATS) units having part numbers (P/N)
3505910–4 or –5; certificated in any category.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless
accomplished previously.
To prevent a flash fire in the nacelle,
which would result in the flightcrew shutting
down the engine during flight, and
consequent reduced controllability of the
airplane, accomplish the following:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8031
Repetitive Detailed Inspection
(b) Within 200 flight hours or 90 days after
the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs first: Perform a detailed inspection of
the oil in the air turbine starter (ATS) to
determine the quantity of oil and to
determine the amount of debris
contamination in the oil in accordance with
the applicable service bulletin. Repeat the
inspection at intervals not to exceed 500
flight hours or 180 days, whichever occurs
first.
Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a
detailed inspection is defined as: ‘‘An
intensive visual examination of a specific
structural area, system, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or
irregularity. Available lighting is normally
supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by
the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,
magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface
cleaning and elaborate access procedures
may be required.’’
Oil Replacement if Oil Quantity Is Correct
and No Excessive Debris Is Found
(c) If, during the inspection required by
paragraph (b) of this AD, no oil debris
contamination is found that is in excess of
the limits allowed by the applicable service
bulletin; and if the amount of oil in the ATS
is correct: Prior to further flight, replace the
oil in the ATS with new oil, in accordance
with the applicable service bulletin.
ATS Replacement if Oil Quantity Is
Incorrect or if Excessive Debris Is Found
(d) If, during the inspection required by
paragraph (b) of this AD, the oil quantity is
found to be incorrect; or if oil debris
contamination is found that is in excess of
the limits allowed by the applicable service
bulletin: Replace the ATS with a new or
serviceable ATS having part number (P/N)
3505910–4, P/N 3505910–5, or P/N 3505910–
6, at the times specified in and in accordance
with the applicable service bulletin. If an
affected ATS has less than 400 flight hours
since new or last overhaul, the ‘‘penalty run’’
test may be performed before further flight
and the ATS replaced at the times specified
in and in accordance with the applicable
service bulletin.
Terminating Action
(e) Within 26 months after the effective
date of this AD, replace any ATS having
P/N 3505910–4 or –5 with a new ATS having
P/N 3505910–6 in accordance with the
applicable service bulletin. This replacement
constitutes terminating action for the
repetitive detailed inspections required by
paragraph (b) of this AD.
Actions Accomplished per Previous Issue of
Service Bulletin 145–80–0005
(f) Actions accomplished before the
effective date of this AD per EMBRAER
Service Bulletin 145–80–0005, Revision 01,
dated April 10, 2003, are considered
acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding actions specified in this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(g) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the
Manager, International Branch, ANM–116,
E:\FR\FM\17FER1.SGM
17FER1
8032
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 32 / Thursday, February 17, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, is
authorized to approve alternative methods of
compliance for this AD.
Incorporation by Reference
(h) The actions shall be done in accordance
with the service information specified in
Table 1 of this AD, as applicable. This
incorporation by reference was approved by
the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies may be obtained from
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao
Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil. Copies may be
inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202) 741–6030, or go to: https://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
TABLE 1.—MATERIAL INCORPORATED
BY REFERENCE
EMBRAER service bulletin
Revision
level
Date
145–80–0005 ....
02 ...........
145–80–0006 ....
145LEG–80–
0001.
145LEG–80–
0002.
Original ..
01 ...........
Sept. 16,
2003.
Oct. 2, 2003.
Apr. 10, 2003.
Original ..
Oct. 2, 2003.
Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed
in Brazilian airworthiness directive 2003–07–
01R1, dated December 23, 2003.
Effective Date
(i) This amendment becomes effective on
March 24, 2005.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February
2, 2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–2842 Filed 2–16–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 172
[Docket No. 2003F–0023]
Food Additives Permitted for Direct
Addition to Food for Human
Consumption; Acacia (Gum Arabic)
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is amending the
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:43 Feb 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
food additive regulations to provide for
the safe use of acacia (gum arabic) as a
thickener, emulsifier, or stabilizer in
alcoholic beverages at a maximum use
level of 20 percent. This action is in
response to a petition filed by Kerry,
Inc.
DATES: This rule is effective February
17, 2005. Submit written objections and
requests for a hearing by March 21,
2005. The Director of the Office of the
Federal Register approves the
incorporation by reference in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51 of certain publications in 21
CFR 172.780 as of February 17, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written
objections and requests for a hearing,
identified by Docket No. 2003F–0023,
by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Web site: https://
www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the agency Web site.
• E-mail: fdadockets@oc.fda.gov.
Include Docket No. 2003F–0023 in the
subject line of your e-mail message.
• FAX: 301–827–6870.
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For
paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions]:
Division of Dockets Management (HFA–
305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this rulemaking. All
objections received will be posted
without change to https://www.fda.gov/
ohrms/dockets/default.htm, including
any personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on submitting
objections, see the ‘‘Objections’’ heading
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/
default.htm and insert the docket
number, found in brackets in the
heading of this document, into the
‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts
and/or go to the Division of Dockets
Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mical Honigfort, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS–265), Food
and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint
Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,
301–436–1278.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
II. Introduction
A. Identity
B. Regulated Food Uses
III. Safety Evaluation
A. Proposed Use and Exposure
B. Safety Assessment
IV. Conclusions
V. Environmental Impact
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VII. References
VIII. Objections
I. Background
The petition was initially filed as a
generally recognized as safe (GRAS)
affirmation petition (GRASP 3G0287) as
announced in a notice published in the
Federal Register on October 13, 1983
(48 FR 46626). The GRAS affirmation
petition was filed by Beatrice Foods Co.
(now Kerry, Inc.) and proposed to
amend part 184 (21 CFR part 184) in
§ 184.1330 Acacia (gum arabic) to
permit the use of gum acacia (arabic) in
alcoholic beverages up to a maximum
level of 20 percent in the finished
preparation (liqueur).
In a letter dated September 21, 2000,
Kerry, Inc., requested that FDA convert
the filed GRAS affirmation petition to a
GRAS notice in accordance with the
agency’s proposed rule for Substances
Generally Recognized as Safe published
April 17, 1997 (62 FR 18938). Consistent
with this request, FDA converted the
GRAS affirmation petition to GRAS
Notice No. GRN 000058. In its
evaluation of this GRAS notice (Ref. 1),
the agency considered that § 184.1(b)(2)
was established at the same time that
the GRAS status of some uses of acacia
were affirmed and that the limitations in
§ 184.1(b)(2) were intended to apply to
the GRAS listing for acacia. According
to § 184.1(b)(2), if an ingredient is
affirmed as GRAS with specific
limitations on the conditions of use, any
use of the ingredient not in full
compliance with the limitations
requires a food additive regulation.
Given the options discussed in the
agency response letter to GRN 000058
(Ref. 1), Kerry, Inc., requested in a letter
dated September 6, 2001, that FDA
convert GRN 000058 to a food additive
petition.
In a notice published in the Federal
Register on February 13, 2003 (68 FR
7381), FDA announced that a food
additive petition (FAP 1A4730) had
been filed by Kerry, Inc., c/o Bell, Boyd,
and Lloyd, LLC, Three First National
Plaza, 70 West Madison St., suite 3300,
Chicago, IL 60602–4207. The petition
proposes to amend the food additive
regulations in part 172 (21 CFR part
172) to provide for the safe use of acacia
(gum arabic) as a thickener, emulsifier,
or stabilizer in the manufacture of
E:\FR\FM\17FER1.SGM
17FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 32 (Thursday, February 17, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8028-8032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2842]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2003-NM-237-AD; Amendment 39-13977; AD 2005-04-05]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model EMB-135 and -145 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and -145 series airplanes.
This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections of the oil in the air
turbine starter (ATS) to determine the quantity of the oil and the
amount of debris contamination in the oil. If the oil quantity is
incorrect or if excessive debris is found in the oil, this AD requires
replacement of the ATS with a new or serviceable ATS, and continued
repetitive detailed inspections. This AD also requires eventual
replacement of each ATS with a new, improved ATS, which constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive detailed inspections. This action
is necessary to prevent a flash fire in the nacelle, which would result
in the flightcrew shutting down the engine during flight, and
consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. This action is
intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
DATES: Effective March 24, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of March 24, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O.
Box 343--CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos--SP, Brazil. This information
may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport
Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA,
call (202) 741-6030, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal_
register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1175;
fax (425) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and
-145 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on February
19, 2004 (69 FR 7707). That action proposed to require repetitive
detailed inspections of the oil in the air turbine starter (ATS) to
determine the quantity of the oil and the amount of debris
contamination in the oil. If the oil quantity was incorrect or if
excessive debris was found in the oil, that proposal would have
required replacement of the ATS with a new or serviceable ATS having
the same part number, and continued repetitive detailed inspections.
That proposal would also have required eventual replacement of each ATS
with a new improved ATS having a new part number, which would
constitute terminating action for the repetitive detailed inspections.
Actions Since Proposed AD Was Issued
Since we issued the proposed AD, we have determined that the
Departmento de Aviacao Civil (DAC), which is the airworthiness
authority for Brazil, issued two Brazilian airworthiness directives
that address that same unsafe condition. The DAC issued Brazilian
airworthiness directive 2001-09-04, dated October 10, 2001. The DAC
also issued Brazilian airworthiness directive 2003-07-01, Revision 01,
dated December 23, 2003. We issued a parallel proposed AD for each
Brazilian airworthiness directive. One proposed AD, Directorate
Identifier 2002-NM-352-AD, was published in the Federal Register on
December 18, 2003 (68 FR 243). The other proposed AD, Directorate
Identifier 2003-NM-237-AD, was published in the Federal Register on
February 19, 2004 (69 FR 7707).
Upon further evaluation, and based on comments received in response
to the proposed AD with Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-352-AD, we have
determined that it is in the best interest of the FAA and the U.S.
operators to combine the requirements of both of our proposed ADs into
this AD. The requirements in this AD adequately address the identified
unsafe condition specified in 2002-NM-352-AD. Accordingly, the proposed
AD with Directorate Identifier 2002-NM-352-AD will be withdrawn after
this AD is issued. The DAC and the airplane manufacturer support our
decision.
Comments
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Request To Allow Part Number (P/N) 3505910-6 as a Replacement Part
Three commenters request that air turbine starter (ATS) P/N
3505910-6 be included in the proposed AD as an acceptable replacement
part. (The proposed AD states that an affected ATS should be replaced
with a new or serviceable ATS having P/N 3505910-4 or P/N 3505910-5.)
We agree with the commenters' requests. We have revised the Summary
section of this AD by deleting the text that states that the ATS should
be replaced with an ATS having the same part number. Paragraph (d) of
this AD has been revised to include P/N 3505910-6 as an additional
acceptable replacement part.
Request To Allow Replacement of ATS Within 50 Hours Instead of Before
Further Flight
Two commenters request that the proposed AD be revised so that, if
the results of an inspection of the oil indicate that the ATS should be
replaced, operators may continue to use that ATS for an additional 50
flight hours before doing the replacement. (Paragraph (d) of the
proposed AD specifies that that the ATS should be replaced prior to
further flight.) One commenter states that the 50-hour grace period
should be acceptable because Brazilian airworthiness directive 2003-07-
01R1, dated December 23, 2003, allows ATS units that don't show
evidence of wear or failure to go back into service for 50 flight hours
before replacement. The commenter also states that, based on service
history, the additional 50 flight hours is very conservative. The other
commenter states that EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-80-0005, Revision
02, dated September 16, 2003, allows a grace
[[Page 8029]]
period of 50 flight hours, and that operators incorporating that
service bulletin have not reported failures or service interruptions
within 50 hours of the service inspection.
We agree to allow a 50-hour grace period for ATSs that meet the
criteria specified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-80-0005, Revision
02. We misinterpreted the Brazilian airworthiness directive and, in the
proposed AD, identified the 50-hour grace period as a difference
between the proposed AD and the Brazilian airworthiness directive. We
have determined that a 50-hour grace period will allow airplanes to
continue to operate without compromising safety. Paragraph (d) of this
AD has been revised to specify that an ATS should be replaced at the
times specified in the applicable service bulletin.
Request To Change Compliance Time for Initial Inspection
One commenter requests that the FAA revise the compliance time for
the initial detailed inspection specified in paragraph (b) of the
proposed AD. The commenter provides two suggestions for making this
change. The first suggestion is to either delete the statement
``whichever comes first'' or change that statement to ``whichever comes
later.'' The second suggestion is to change the initial inspection
threshold from ``Within 200 flight hours or 90 days'' to ``Within 500
flight hours or 180 days.'' The commenter states that it is already
accomplishing the intent of the proposed AD. Since August 2003, the
commenter has repetitively inspected the ATS in its fleet of airplanes
at intervals of 500 flight hours. The commenter contends that, by
changing the threshold for the initial inspection in the proposed AD,
the FAA and the commenter would conserve resources regarding the
processing of requests for alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs)
related to the compliance time for the initial detailed inspection.
We do not agree with the commenter's request to change the
threshold for the initial detailed inspection. In developing an
appropriate threshold for this AD, we considered the safety
implications, the manufacturer's recommendations, the Brazilian
airworthiness authority's recommendations, and operators' maintenance
schedules. Under the provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD, however,
we may consider requests for adjustments to this compliance time if
data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would
provide an acceptable level of safety.
Request To Include Secondary Test for Certain ATSs
One commenter notes that Brazilian airworthiness directive 2003-07-
01R1 includes a provision that a new ATS should not be replaced during
the first 400 hours of operation after installation if oil system
debris is detected during an inspection. The proposed AD does not
include that provision. The commenter states that metallic debris is
normal during the ``wear-in'' of a new ATS. Such debris does not
necessarily indicate abnormal wear or imminent failure of the part. The
commenter also states that EMBRAER Service Bulletins 145-80-0005,
Revision 02, dated September 16, 2003; and 145LEG-80-0001, Revision 01,
dated April 10, 2003; include a secondary test (referred to as a
``penalty run'' in the service bulletins) that should be conducted on
new ATSs that show metallic particles on the magnetic drain plug.
(Those service bulletins were cited in the proposed AD as acceptable
sources of service information for inspecting the ATS.) The results of
the secondary test will help operators determine if metal debris is a
result of the normal ``wear-in'' period or abnormal ATS wear, or is
from a different part of the engine.
We agree that, if an ATS has less than 400 flight hours since new
or last overhaul, operators should be allowed the option of performing
the secondary test. This option allows airplanes to continue to operate
without compromising safety. Paragraph (d) of this AD has been revised
to allow operators the option of replacing the ATS before further
flight or performing the secondary test in accordance with the
applicable service bulletin.
Request To Include Additional Service Information
One commenter requests that the proposed AD be revised to require
operators to incorporate Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin AE 3007A-72-253,
dated September 13, 2002. The commenter states that the Rolls-Royce
service bulletin includes procedures for installing a vented quick
access drain (QAD) adapter. The QAD adapter alleviates a contributing
cause of the ATS failure.
We partially agree. We agree that installing the QAD adapter
alleviates a contributing cause of the ATS failure; however, we will
not revise this AD to require operators to perform the actions in the
Rolls-Royce service bulletin. The parallel Brazilian airworthiness
directive does not require operators to incorporate the Rolls-Royce
service bulletin, and the associated EMBRAER service bulletins include
procedures for operators that have incorporated the Rolls-Royce service
bulletin and procedures for operators that have not incorporated the
Rolls-Royce service bulletin. Also, operators may voluntarily
incorporate the Rolls-Royce service bulletin. No change has been made
to this AD regarding this issue.
The same commenter states that requiring the EMBRAER EMB-135 and -
145 fleet to install P/N 3505910-6 within two years after the effective
date of the proposed AD is an unnecessary hardship given the
improvements made by incorporating the Rolls-Royce service bulletin.
The commenter states that the procedures in the Rolls-Royce service
bulletin include removing the drain cap, which would attenuate the oil
migration and seal damage, making the potential for a low-oil/backdrive
failure much less likely. The commenter notes that it took operators
almost a year to accomplish the ``simple'' Rolls-Royce service
bulletin. We infer that the commenter requests an extension of the
compliance time specified in paragraph (e) of the proposed AD.
We do not agree to extend the compliance time in paragraph (e) of
this AD. Although the preventative measures provided in the Rolls-Royce
service bulletin address the primary cause of backdrive events, other
contributing causes of backdrive events still exist. Also, the
commenter did not provide data that substantiate that all operators
have incorporated the Rolls-Royce service bulletin. Furthermore, the
parallel Brazilian airworthiness directive specifies that all ATS P/Ns
3505910-4 and -5 should be replaced with ATS, P/N 3505910-6, before
March 1, 2006. Since we do not use calendar dates in the compliance
times for our ADs, we considered the safety implications, the
manufacturer's recommendations, and the Brazilian airworthiness
authority's recommendations, and determined that accomplishment of the
part replacement within 26 months after the effective date of the AD
represents an appropriate interval of time for affected airplanes to
continue to operate without compromising safety. However, under the
provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD, we may consider requests for
adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to
substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level
of safety.
Request To Clarify Unsafe Condition
Two commenters mention that the unsafe condition statement in the
proposed AD is inaccurate. One commenter states that the unsafe
[[Page 8030]]
condition statement implies that a fire in an engine section is a
direct cause of the engine shutdown, when actually a fire started by an
ATS would be detected by the fire detection system and annunciated to
the flightcrew. The engine shutdown is a result of the flightcrew's
response to the fire. The other commenter states that the phrases
``prevent a flash fire'' and ``cause the engine to shut down'' are
incorrect. The commenter notes that the improved ATS, P/N 3505910-6,
prevents ATS backdrive failures. The commenter states that backdrive
failures do not necessarily result in a flash fire or always result in
engine shutdown. We infer that the commenters are requesting that the
unsafe condition statement in the proposed AD be revised.
We agree that the unsafe condition statement implies that a fire in
an engine section directly causes an engine shutdown. We do not agree
that the phrases ``prevent a flash fire'' and ``cause the engine to
shut down'' are incorrect. The end result of the unsafe condition is
the possibility of a flash fire and an engine shutdown. The intent of
this AD is to require operators to install the new, improved ATS, P/N
3505910-6, which prevents the ATS backdrive failures. Therefore, until
operators install P/N 3505910-6, the possibility of a flash fire and
engine shutdown still exists. The unsafe condition statement in this AD
has been revised to state: ``To prevent a flash fire in the nacelle,
which would result in the flightcrew shutting down the engine during
flight, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.''
Request To Allow Alternative Method for Repetitive Inspections
One commenter states that it services the ATS oil system of its
fleet every routine check (7 days), as specified in Subtask 80-10-01-
610-001-A00, dated August 28, 2004, in Chapter 80-10-01 of the EMBRAER
EMB-145 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM). The commenter asks if it is
acceptable to the FAA to continue this practice. We infer that the
commenter is requesting to perform the repetitive inspections in the
AMM instead of the repetitive detailed inspections specified in
paragraph (b) of this AD.
It is acceptable for the commenter to continue doing the procedures
specified in Subtask 80-10-01-610-001-A00. However, after reviewing the
subtask, we have determined that those procedures do not satisfy the
requirements of this AD. The procedures in the subtask are for
determining the oil level of the ATS, not for inspecting the oil in the
ATS for debris. As provided by paragraph (g) of this AD, the commenter
may apply for an AMOC.
Request To Omit Repetitive Inspections
One commenter supports the issuance of the proposed AD but raises
several questions. The commenter questions the purpose of including
repetitive inspections in the proposed AD. The commenter also asks if
180 ``hours'' between inspections is too much time. The commenter notes
that if abrasive particles become suspended in a lubricating substance
within the first 90 days, there is an ineffective lubrication system
for 90 more days. The commenter also proposes several solutions for
addressing the unsafe condition of debris in the oil of the ATS. The
commenter states that requiring the immediate replacement of the ATS
when the AD is published would be more cost effective than requiring
repetitive inspections and eventual replacement of the ATS. The
commenter states that the immediate part replacement would also be
safer. We infer that the commenter is requesting that the proposed AD
be revised to omit the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph
(b) of that AD, and to mandate only the replacement of any ATS having
P/N 3505910-4 or P/N 3505910-5 with an ATS having P/N 3505910-6, as
specified in paragraph (e) of that AD. We also infer that the commenter
is requesting a reduction of the compliance time for the repetitive
inspection intervals.
We do not agree that the repetitive inspections of the ATS oil
should be deleted from paragraph (e) of this AD, or that the compliance
time for the repetitive inspection intervals should be reduced. Also,
the repetitive inspection interval specified in paragraph (b) of this
AD is 180 days, not 180 hours. The commenter did not provide any data
to substantiate the termination of the repetitive inspections of the
oil in the ATS, or the reduction of the compliance time for the
repetitive inspection intervals. Both the Brazilian airworthiness
directive and EMBRAER Service Bulletins 145-80-0005, Revision 02, dated
September 16, 2003; and 145LEG-80-0001, Revision 01, dated April 10,
2003; include provisions for repetitive inspections. The Brazilian
airworthiness directive mandates the detailed inspections at intervals
of 500 flight hours or 180 days, whichever occurs first. We have
determined that the repetitive inspections are needed to ensure the
continued operational safety of the affected airplanes. No change has
been made to this AD regarding these issues.
Request To Delete Note Regarding Submission of Information
One commenter states that the proposed AD mentions that Honeywell
Service Bulletin 3505910-80-1789, dated August 19, 2003, specifies to
submit certain information to Honeywell. (That service bulletin was
referenced as an additional source of service information in the
proposed AD.) The commenter states that Service Bulletin 3505910-80-
1789 has been revised and no longer requests operators to submit
information to Honeywell. We infer that the commenter is requesting
that the references to submitting certain information to Honeywell be
deleted from the proposed AD.
We do not agree to revise this AD regarding the submission of
information to Honeywell. To date, we have not received a copy of the
revised service bulletin and to our knowledge the revised service
bulletin has not been issued. Furthermore, when the revised service
bulletin is issued, the requirements of this AD will not be affected by
the omission of the request to submit information to Honeywell. Since
the Honeywell service bulletin is cited as a secondary source of
service information in this AD, it is referenced in a note. Notes in
ADs provide additional information only and do not include
requirements. No change has been made to this AD regarding this issue.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest
require the adoption of the rule with the changes described previously.
We have determined that these changes will neither increase the
economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
Cost Impact
We estimate that 459 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by
this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to
inspect the oil in the ATS, and that the average labor rate is $65 per
work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S.
operators is estimated to be $29,835, or $65 per airplane, per
inspection cycle.
We estimate it will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to
replace the ATS, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the replacement on U.S
operators is estimated to be $59,670, or $130 per airplane.
[[Page 8031]]
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this
AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed
in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform
the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures
typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to
gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other
administrative actions.
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. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated 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 AD.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it
is determined that this final rule does not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under 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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
0
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:
2005-04-05 Empresa Brasileira De Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer):
Amendment 39-13977. Docket 2003-NM-237-AD.
Applicability: Model EMB-135 and -145 series airplanes, with air
turbine starter (ATS) units having part numbers (P/N) 3505910-4 or -
5; certificated in any category.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent a flash fire in the nacelle, which would result in
the flightcrew shutting down the engine during flight, and
consequent reduced controllability of the airplane, accomplish the
following:
Service Bulletin Reference
(a) The term ``service bulletin,'' as used in this AD, means the
Accomplishment Instructions of the following service bulletins, as
applicable:
(1) For the detailed inspection and replacements specified in
paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this AD: For Model EMB-135 BJ series
airplanes, EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-80-0001, Revision 01,
dated April 10, 2003; and for all other affected airplanes, EMBRAER
Service Bulletin 145-80-0005, Revision 02, dated September 16, 2003.
(2) For the replacement specified in paragraph (e) of this AD:
For Model EMB-135 BJ series airplanes, EMBRAER Service Bulletin
145LEG-80-0002, dated October 2, 2003; and for all other affected
airplanes, EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-80-0006, dated October 2,
2003.
Note 1: These service bulletins refer to Honeywell Service
Bulletin 3505910-80-1789, dated August 19, 2003, as an additional
source of service information. The Honeywell service bulletin is
included in the EMBRAER service bulletins. Although this Honeywell
service bulletin specifies to submit certain information to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include such a requirement.
Repetitive Detailed Inspection
(b) Within 200 flight hours or 90 days after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first: Perform a detailed inspection of
the oil in the air turbine starter (ATS) to determine the quantity
of oil and to determine the amount of debris contamination in the
oil in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Repeat the
inspection at intervals not to exceed 500 flight hours or 180 days,
whichever occurs first.
Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is
defined as: ``An intensive visual examination of a specific
structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage,
failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally
supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity
deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,
magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate
access procedures may be required.''
Oil Replacement if Oil Quantity Is Correct and No Excessive Debris Is
Found
(c) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (b) of this
AD, no oil debris contamination is found that is in excess of the
limits allowed by the applicable service bulletin; and if the amount
of oil in the ATS is correct: Prior to further flight, replace the
oil in the ATS with new oil, in accordance with the applicable
service bulletin.
ATS Replacement if Oil Quantity Is Incorrect or if Excessive Debris Is
Found
(d) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (b) of this
AD, the oil quantity is found to be incorrect; or if oil debris
contamination is found that is in excess of the limits allowed by
the applicable service bulletin: Replace the ATS with a new or
serviceable ATS having part number (P/N) 3505910-4, P/N 3505910-5,
or P/N 3505910-6, at the times specified in and in accordance with
the applicable service bulletin. If an affected ATS has less than
400 flight hours since new or last overhaul, the ``penalty run''
test may be performed before further flight and the ATS replaced at
the times specified in and in accordance with the applicable service
bulletin.
Terminating Action
(e) Within 26 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace any ATS having P/N 3505910-4 or -5 with a new ATS having P/N
3505910-6 in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. This
replacement constitutes terminating action for the repetitive
detailed inspections required by paragraph (b) of this AD.
Actions Accomplished per Previous Issue of Service Bulletin 145-80-0005
(f) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD
per EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-80-0005, Revision 01, dated April
10, 2003, are considered acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding actions specified in this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(g) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116,
[[Page 8032]]
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, is authorized to approve
alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
Incorporation by Reference
(h) The actions shall be done in accordance with the service
information specified in Table 1 of this AD, as applicable. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies may be obtained from Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica
S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343--CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos--SP,
Brazil. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go
to: https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.
Table 1.--Material Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMBRAER service bulletin Revision level Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
145-80-0005..................... 02.............. Sept. 16, 2003.
145-80-0006..................... Original........ Oct. 2, 2003.
145LEG-80-0001.................. 01.............. Apr. 10, 2003.
145LEG-80-0002.................. Original........ Oct. 2, 2003.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed in Brazilian
airworthiness directive 2003-07-01R1, dated December 23, 2003.
Effective Date
(i) This amendment becomes effective on March 24, 2005.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 2, 2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-2842 Filed 2-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
