Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 and ERJ 190 Airplanes, 247-252 [E6-22464]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
247
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 72, No. 2
Thursday, January 4, 2007
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. Prices of
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of each week.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
9 CFR Part 77
[Docket No. APHIS–2006–0145]
Tuberculosis in Cattle and Bison; State
and Zone Designations; Texas
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as
final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final
rule, without change, an interim rule
that amended the bovine tuberculosis
regulations regarding State and zone
classifications by raising the designation
of Texas from modified accredited
advanced to accredited-free. The interim
rule was based on our determination
that Texas met the criteria for
designation as an accredited-free State.
DATES: Effective on January 4, 2007, we
are adopting as a final rule the interim
rule published at 71 FR 58252–58254 on
October 3, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Kathy Orloski, Epidemiologist, National
Tuberculosis Eradication Program,
National Center for Animal Health
Programs, VS, APHIS, 2150 Centre
Avenue, Building B, M/S 3E20, Fort
Collins, CO 80526–8117, (970) 494–
7221.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
pwalker on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Background
In an interim rule 1 effective on
September 29, 2006, and published in
the Federal Register on October 3, 2006
1 To
view the interim rule and the comment we
received, go to https://www.regulations.gov, click on
the ‘‘Advanced Search’’ tab, and select ‘‘Docket
Search.’’ In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS–2006–
0145, then click ‘‘Submit.’’ Clicking on the Docket
ID link in the search results page will produce a list
of all documents in the docket.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:35 Jan 04, 2007
Jkt 211001
(71 FR 58252–58254, Docket No.
APHIS–2006–0145), we amended the
bovine tuberculosis regulations
regarding State and zone classifications
in 9 CFR part 77 by raising the
designation of Texas from modified
accredited advanced to accredited-free.
The interim rule was based on our
determination that Texas met the
criteria for designation as an accreditedfree State.
Comments on the interim rule were
required to be received on or before
December 4, 2006. We received one
comment by that date, from a private
citizen. The commenter stated his belief
that if his herd of cattle is tested, then
all neighboring herds should be tested
to ensure that all cattle in the area are
free of tuberculosis. We noted in the
interim rule that State animal health
authorities in Texas have demonstrated
to us that the State meets the criteria for
accredited-free status set forth in the
definition of accredited-free State or
zone in § 77.5 of the tuberculosis
regulations. Those criteria include a
requirement for zero percent prevalence
of affected cattle or bison herds.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the
interim rule, we are adopting the
interim rule as a final rule.
This action also affirms the
information contained in the interim
rule concerning Executive Order 12866
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and
the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Further, for this action, the Office of
Management and Budget has waived its
review under Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 77
Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation,
Tuberculosis.
PART 77—TUBERCULOSIS
Accordingly, we are adopting as a
final rule, without change, the interim
rule that amended 9 CFR part 77 and
that was published at 71 FR 58252–
58254 on October 3, 2006.
I
Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of
December 2006.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E6–22545 Filed 1–3–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2006–25643; Directorate
Identifier 2006–NM–135–AD; Amendment
39–14869; AD 2006–26–11]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Empresa
Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 and ERJ
190 Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 and ERJ 190
airplanes. This AD requires repetitive
inspections to detect damaged smoke
seals in the aft avionics compartment,
repair/replacement if any damage is
found, and reinforcement if no damage
is found. This AD also requires eventual
replacement of all smoke seals in the aft
avionics compartment with new,
improved seals having new part
numbers, which terminates the
repetitive inspections. This AD results
from a report of damaged smoke seals in
the aft avionics compartment of the
affected airplanes. We are issuing this
AD to prevent smoke from penetrating
into the passenger cabin during a fire in
the avionics compartment.
DATES: This AD becomes effective
February 8, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of certain publications listed in the AD
as of February 8, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD
docket on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street
SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401,
Washington, DC.
Contact Empresa Brasileira de
Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box
343–CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—
SP, Brazil, for service information
identified in this AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
E:\FR\FM\04JAR1.SGM
04JAR1
248
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1175;
fax (425) 227–1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Examining the Docket
You may examine the airworthiness
directive (AD) docket on the Internet at
https://dms.dot.gov or in person at the
Docket Management Facility office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Docket Management Facility office
(telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building at
the street address stated in the
ADDRESSES section.
Discussion
The FAA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would
apply to certain EMBRAER Model ERJ
170 and ERJ 190 airplanes. That NPRM
was published in the Federal Register
on August 21, 2006 (71 FR 48490). That
NPRM proposed to require repetitive
inspections to detect damaged smoke
seals in the aft avionics compartment,
repair/replacement if any damage is
found, and reinforcement if no damage
is found. That AD also proposed to
require eventual replacement of all
smoke seals in the aft avionics
compartment with new, improved seals
having new part numbers, which would
terminate the repetitive inspections.
pwalker on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Comments
We provided the public the
opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have
considered the comments received.
Request To Withdraw the NPRM
EMBRAER states that an AD does not
apply in this case because there is no
unsafe condition associated with this
failure mode. EMBRAER explains that
the smoke seals in the aft avionics
compartment are installed to
demonstrate compliance with section
25.831(c) of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 25.831(c)).
EMBRAER states that the configuration
of the smoke seals was approved during
the ERJ 170/190 certification campaign,
based on the procedures established by
Advisory Circular AC 25–9A (‘‘Smoke
Detection, Penetration, and Evacuation
Tests and Related Flight Manual
Emergency Procedures’’), dated
January 6, 1994, which, in part,
provides guidelines for conducting
certification tests relating to smoke
detection, penetration, and evacuation.
EMBRAER states that the smoke
penetration test was carried out under
critical conditions with a very large
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:35 Jan 04, 2007
Jkt 211001
amount of smoke, and confirmed that
the smoke seal is an efficient smoke
barrier. EMBRAER also states that the
potential source of smoke coming from
the aft avionics compartment is residual
smoke coming from the electronic
equipment, which is designed not to
generate fire. Therefore, EMBRAER
states that no fire event is expected in
the region, only a small amount of
smoke.
EMBRAER also addresses the damage
on the smoke seal and states that all of
the reported cases most likely happened
during maintenance. EMBRAER states
that these small damaged areas would
not prevent the smoke seal from
working satisfactorily as a smoke
barrier, and that even in case of an
unexpected smoke generation in the
area, only a small amount of smoke
would enter the passenger
compartment. EMBRAER points out that
the presence of smoke wisps in the
passenger compartment was considered
in the environmental system safety
assessment, and that there are crew
actions defined to mitigate this
condition.
We disagree that an AD does not
apply in this case. EMBRAER has not
provided sufficient technical
justification that damaged smoke seals
in the aft avionics compartment of the
affected airplanes are not a potentially
serious safety problem. Specifically,
EMBRAER does not state whether it has
performed smoke penetration testing
with damaged or worn seals. EMBRAER
also does not state if it has performed
flight testing or only ground testing for
smoke penetration. Finally, EMBRAER
states that it has defined crew actions to
mitigate wisps of smoke entering the
cabin but does not refer to a
documented cabin smoke evacuation
procedure in the airplane flight manual
to support this claim.
We have determined that an unsafe
condition exists, and that issuing an AD
is the appropriate way to correct an
unsafe condition. In addition, Agencia
Nacional de Aviacao Civil (ANAC),
¸˜
which is the airworthiness authority for
Brazil, issued Brazilian airworthiness
directives 2006–05–04 (for Model ERJ
170 airplanes) and 2006–05–07 (for
Model ERJ 190 airplanes), both effective
June 14, 2006, to address the subject
unsafe condition. ANAC has not
withdrawn their airworthiness
directives, and has not advised us that
it plans to do so. If EMBRAER can
provide additional information to
substantiate its statements, we may
consider further rulemaking then. We
have not changed the AD in this regard.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Request To Change Incorporation of
Certain Information
The Modification and Replacement of
Parts Association (MARPA), states that,
typically, airworthiness directives are
based on service information originating
with the type certificate holder or its
suppliers. MARPA adds that
manufacturer service documents are
privately authored instruments
generally having copyright protection
against duplication and distribution.
MARPA notes that when a service
document is incorporated by reference
into a public document, such as an
airworthiness directive, it loses its
private, protected status and becomes a
public document. MARPA adds that if
a service document is used as a
mandatory element of compliance, it
should not simply be referenced, but
should be incorporated into the
regulatory document; by definition,
public laws must be public, which
means they cannot rely upon private
writings. MARPA is concerned that the
failure to incorporate essential service
information could result in a court
decision invalidating the AD.
MARPA adds that incorporated by
reference service documents should be
made available to the public by
publication in the Docket Management
System (DMS), keyed to the action that
incorporates them. MARPA notes that
the stated purpose of the incorporation
by reference method is brevity, to keep
from expanding the Federal Register
needlessly by publishing documents
already in the hands of the affected
individuals; traditionally, ‘‘affected
individuals’’ means aircraft owners and
operators, who are generally provided
service information by the
manufacturer. MARPA adds that a new
class of affected individuals has
emerged, since the majority of aircraft
maintenance is now performed by
specialty shops instead of aircraft
owners and operators. MARPA notes
that this new class includes
maintenance and repair organizations,
component servicing and repair shops,
parts purveyors and distributors, and
organizations manufacturing or
servicing alternatively certified parts
under part 21 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 21), section
21.303 (parts manufacturer approval
(PMA)). MARPA adds that the concept
of brevity is now nearly archaic, as
documents exist more frequently in
electronic format than on paper.
Therefore, MARPA asks that the service
documents deemed essential to the
accomplishment of the NPRM be
incorporated by reference into the
E:\FR\FM\04JAR1.SGM
04JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
pwalker on PROD1PC65 with RULES
regulatory instrument, and published in
the DMS.
We understand MARPA’s comment
concerning incorporation by reference.
The Office of the Federal Register (OFR)
requires that documents that are
necessary to accomplish the
requirements of the AD be incorporated
by reference during the final rule phase
of rulemaking. This final rule
incorporates by reference the documents
necessary for the accomplishment of the
requirements mandated by this AD.
Further, we point out that while
documents that are incorporated by
reference do become public information,
they do not lose their copyright
protection. For that reason, we advise
the public to contact the manufacturer
to obtain copies of the referenced
service information.
Additionally, we do not publish
service documents in DMS. We are
currently reviewing our practice of
publishing proprietary service
information. Once we have thoroughly
examined all aspects of this issue, and
have made a final determination, we
will consider whether our current
practice needs to be revised. However,
we consider that to delay this AD action
for that reason would be inappropriate,
since we have determined that an
unsafe condition exists and that the
requirements in this AD must be
accomplished to ensure continued
safety. Therefore, we have not changed
the AD in this regard.
Request To Reference PMA Parts
MARPA also states that type
certificate holders in their service
documents universally ignore the
possible existence of PMA parts.
MARPA states that this is especially
true with foreign manufacturers where
the concept may not exist or be
implemented in the country of origin.
MARPA points out that the service
document upon which an airworthiness
directive is based frequently will require
removing a certain part-numbered part
and installing a different part-numbered
part as a corrective action. According to
MARPA, this runs afoul of section
21.303 (‘‘Parts Manufacturer Approval’’)
of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.303), which permits the
development, certification, and
installation of alternatively certified
parts.
MARPA further states that installing a
certain part-numbered part to the
exclusion of all other parts is not a
favored general practice. MARPA states
that such an action has the dual effect
of preventing, in some cases, the
installation of a perfectly good part;
while at the same time prohibiting the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:35 Jan 04, 2007
Jkt 211001
development of new parts permitted
under section 21.303. According to
MARPA, such a prohibition runs the
risk of taking the AD out of the realm
of safety and into the world of
economics, since prohibiting the
development, sale, and use of a
perfectly airworthy part has nothing to
do with safety. MARPA states that
courts could easily construe such
actions as being outside the statutory
basis of the AD (safety) and, as such,
unenforceable. MARPA adds that courts
are reluctant to find portions of a rule
unenforceable since they lack the
knowledge and authority to re-write
requirements, and are thus generally
inclined to simply void the entire rule.
We infer that MARPA would like the
AD to permit installation of any
equivalent PMA parts so that it is not
necessary for an operator to request
approval of an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) in order to install
an ‘‘alternatively certified’’ PMA part.
Whether an alternative part resolves the
unsafe condition can be determined
only on a case-by-case basis, based on
a complete understanding of the unsafe
condition. We are not currently aware of
any such parts. Our policy is that, in
order for operators to replace a part with
one that is not specified in the AD, they
must request an AMOC. This is
necessary so that we can make a specific
determination that an alternative part is
or is not susceptible to the same unsafe
condition.
In response to MARPA’s statement
regarding running afoul of section
21.303 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 21.303), under
which the FAA issues PMAs, this
statement appears to reflect a
misunderstanding of the relationship
between ADs and the certification
procedural regulations of 14 CFR part
21. Those regulations, including section
21.303, are intended to ensure that
aeronautical products comply with the
applicable airworthiness standards. But
ADs are issued when, notwithstanding
those procedures, we become aware of
unsafe conditions in these products or
parts. Therefore, an AD takes
precedence over design approvals when
we identify an unsafe condition, and
mandating installation of a certain part
number in an AD is not at variance with
section 21.303.
The AD provides a means of
compliance for operators to ensure that
the identified unsafe condition is
addressed appropriately. For an unsafe
condition attributable to a part, the AD
normally identifies the replacement
parts necessary to obtain that
compliance. As stated in section 39.7 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
249
CFR 39.7), ‘‘Anyone who operates a
product that does not meet the
requirements of an applicable
airworthiness directive is in violation of
this section.’’ Unless an operator obtains
approval for an AMOC, replacing a part
with one not specified by the AD would
make the operator subject to an
enforcement action and result in a civil
penalty. No change to the AD is
necessary in this regard.
Request for Compliance With FAA
Order 8040.2/Agreement on Parts
Replacement
MARPA also points out that the
NPRM, as written, does not comply with
proposed Order 8040.2 (AD Process for
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information (MCAI)), which states in the
PMA section: ‘‘MCAI that require
replacement or installation of certain
parts could have replacement parts
approved under 14 CFR § 21.303 based
on a finding of identicality. We have
determined that any parts approved
under this regulation and installed
should be subject to the actions of our
AD and included in the applicability of
our AD.’’
MARPA states that in this case,
certain seals have been determined to be
defective and must be replaced with
parts not containing the identified
defect. MARPA has reviewed both the
MARPA PMA database and the FAA’s
database for possible PMA alternatives
to the defective seals, and found none.
MARPA states that this does not
guarantee that such parts do not now
exist or may not exist in the future and
believes the proposed regulatory action
should address the possibility that there
are or will be PMA parts matching those
determined not to be airworthy. MARPA
has noted that the FAA frequently states
its policy of identifying defective parts
only when they are known, but MARPA
is of the opinion that the FAA’s state of
mind is irrelevant when constructing
enforceable regulatory actions. MARPA
believes that incorporating the language
specified in proposed FAA Order 8040.2
should adequately address this concern.
MARPA points out that the Small
Airplane Directorate has developed a
blanket statement that resolves this
issue. The statement includes words
similar to that in the proposed Order
8040.2. MARPA also points out that the
Engine and Rotocraft Directorates avoid
the issue by specifying ‘‘airworthy
parts’’ be installed, leaving the
determination of exactly which parts to
the discretion of the installer.
MARPA further states that because
the NPRM differs markedly in treatment
of this issue from that of the other
directorates, the mandates contained in
E:\FR\FM\04JAR1.SGM
04JAR1
250
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Section 1, paragraph (b)(10) of Executive
Order 12866 are not being met. This
paragraph requires that all agencies act
uniformly on a given issue. MARPA
therefore requests that we take steps to
bring the universe of PMA parts under
the appropriate scope of this AD both
with respect to possible defective PMA
parts and the use of possible present or
future approved parts.
We infer that MARPA would like the
Transport Airplane Directorate to
include words similar to those quoted
from proposed Order 8040.2 in our ADs.
We disagree. The order has been
approved and released as Order 8040.5
(AD Process for Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information (MCAI)),
dated September 29, 2006. The
approved order does not include the
requested language.
Request To Append Certain Language
MARPA also requests that we append
the language in paragraph (f)(2) of the
NPRM to add the following words, ‘‘or
FAA-approved equivalent part
number.’’ MARPA contends that the
addition of those words would remove
any possible conflict with 14 CFR
21.303 that may be raised with respect
to the unmodified text in paragraph
(f)(2) of the NPRM.
We recognize the need for
standardization on this issue and
currently are in the process of reviewing
it at the national level. The Transport
Airplane Directorate considers that to
delay this particular AD action would
be inappropriate, since we have
determined that an unsafe condition
exists and that replacement of certain
parts must be accomplished to ensure
continued safety. Therefore, no change
has been made to the final rule in this
regard.
Explanation of Change to Applicability
We have revised the applicability of
the existing AD to identify model
designations as published in the most
recent type certificate data sheet for the
affected models.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the
available data, including the comments
received, and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the change described
previously. We have determined that
this change will neither increase the
economic burden on any operator nor
increase the scope of the AD.
Costs of Compliance
The following table provides the
estimated costs for U.S. operators to
comply with this AD.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Action
Average
labor rate
per hour
Work
hours
Inspection, per inspection
cycle.
1
$80
None .................................
Reinforcement ...................
1
80
Operator supplied .............
Replacement .....................
8
80
$244 to $265 .....................
pwalker on PROD1PC65 with RULES
$80, per
inspection
cycle
$80, per
inspection
cycle
$884 to $905
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.
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
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation
of the estimated costs to comply with
this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
See the ADDRESSES section for a location
to examine the regulatory evaluation.
Regulatory Findings
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
We have determined that this AD will
not have federalism implications under
Executive Order 13132. This AD will
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
Authority for This Rulemaking
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:35 Jan 04, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Number of
U.S.-registered
airplanes
Cost per
airplane
Parts
Sfmt 4700
Fleet cost
78
$6,240.
78
$6,240.
78
$68,952 to $70,590.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:
I
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13
by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):
I
2006–26–11 Empresa brasileira De
Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER): Amendment
39–14869. Docket No. FAA–2006–25643;
Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–135–AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective February 8,
2007.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
E:\FR\FM\04JAR1.SGM
04JAR1
251
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to the airplanes
identified in Table 1 of this AD, certificated
in any category.
TABLE 1.—AIRPLANES AFFECTED BY THIS AD
EMBRAER Model—
As identified in EMBRAER service bulletin—
ERJ 170–100 LR, –100 STD, –100 SE, –100 SU, –200 LR, –200 STD,
and –200 SU airplanes.
ERJ 190–100 STD, –100 LR, and –100 IGW airplanes ..........................
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from a report of
damaged smoke seals in the aft avionics
compartment of the affected airplanes. We
are issuing this AD to prevent smoke from
penetrating into the passenger cabin during
a fire in the avionics compartment.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the
actions required by this AD performed within
the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
pwalker on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Service Bulletin References
(f) The term ‘‘service bulletin,’’ as used in
this AD, means the Accomplishment
Instructions of the following service
bulletins, as applicable:
(1) For the inspections, applicable
corrective actions, and reinforcement
specified in paragraph (g) of this AD:
EMBRAER Service Bulletins 170–21–0017,
Revision 01,
dated February 15, 2006 (for Model ERJ 170–
100 LR, –100 STD, –100 SE, –100 SU, –200
LR, –200 STD, and –200 SU airplanes); and
190–21–0003, Revision 01, dated February
15, 2006 (for Model ERJ 190–100 STD, –100
LR, and –100 IGW airplanes); and
(2) For the replacement specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD: EMBRAER Service
Bulletins 170–21–0018, Revision 01, dated
February 15, 2006 (for Model ERJ 170–100
LR, –100 STD, –100 SE, –100 SU, –200 LR,
–200 STD, and –200 SU airplanes); and 190–
21–0004, dated December 2, 2005 (for Model
ERJ 190–100 STD, –100 LR, and –100 IGW
airplanes).
Inspections and Reinforcement
(g) Within 600 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD: Do a detailed
inspection for damaged smoke seals in the aft
avionics compartment; and, following the
inspection, before further flight, reinforce
around the Velcro fasteners by installing
silver tape if no damage is found, and do all
applicable corrective actions if any damage is
found. Repeat the inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 1,200 flight hours
until the replacement required by paragraph
(h) of this AD is done. Where the applicable
service bulletin specifies reinforcing around
the Velcro fasteners by installing silver tape
if no damage is found during the detailed
inspection, that reinforcement must be done
the first time; it is required again only if
damage is found during any repeat
inspection. Do all actions in accordance with
the applicable service bulletin specified in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:35 Jan 04, 2007
Jkt 211001
170–21–0017, Revision 01, dated February 15, 2006.
190–21–0003, Revision 01, dated February 15, 2006.
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. If any damage
exceeds the limits specified in the applicable
service bulletin: Before further flight, do the
replacement in paragraph (h) of this AD.
Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a
detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive
examination of a specific item, installation,
or assembly to detect damage, failure, or
irregularity. Available lighting is normally
supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate.
Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying
lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface
cleaning and elaborate procedures may be
required.’’
Replacement
(h) Within 6,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD: Replace the smoke
seal in the aft avionics compartment with a
new, improved seal, having a new part
number, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of the
applicable service bulletin specified in
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Doing this
replacement terminates the repetitive
inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of
this AD.
Parts Installation
(i) As of the effective date of this AD, no
person may install a smoke seal in the aft
avionics compartment on any airplane that
has part number 170–96563–509, –511, –513,
–515, –517, –519, –521, or –523; 171–04768–
501, –503, –505, or –507; 190–15062–501,
–503, –505, or –507; or 190–15902–501,
–503, –505, or –507.
Actions Accomplished According to
Previous Issues of Service Bulletins
(j) Actions done before the effective date of
this AD in accordance with the applicable
service bulletins identified in Table 2 of this
AD, are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g)
and (h) of this AD.
TABLE 2.—PREVIOUS ISSUES OF
SERVICE BULLETINS
EMBRAER service
bulletin
170–21–0017 ............
170–21–0018 ............
190–21–0003 ............
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Date
December 29, 2005.
December 2, 2005.
December 29, 2005.
Sfmt 4700
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(k)(1) The Manager, International Branch,
ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested in accordance with
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in
accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA
Flight Standards Certificate Holding District
Office.
Related Information
(l) Brazilian airworthiness directives 2006–
05–04 (for Model ERJ 170 airplanes) and
2006–05–07 (for Model ERJ 190 airplanes),
both effective June 14, 2006, also address the
subject of this AD.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(m) You must use the service information
specified in Table 3 of this AD, as applicable,
to perform the actions that are required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
The Director of the Federal Register approved
the incorporation by reference of these
documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Empresa
Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER),
P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos
Campos—SP, Brazil, for a copy of this service
information. You may review copies at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh
Street SW., Room PL–401, Nassif Building,
Washington, DC; on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov ; or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at the NARA, call (202) 741–6030,
or go to https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
TABLE 3.—MATERIAL INCORPORATED
BY REFERENCE
EMBRAER service bulletin
Revision
level
170–21–0017 ....
01 ........
170–21–0018 ....
01 ........
190–21–0003 ....
01 ........
E:\FR\FM\04JAR1.SGM
04JAR1
Date
February 15,
2006.
February 15,
2006.
February 15,
2006.
252
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3.—MATERIAL INCORPORATED
BY REFERENCE—Continued
EMBRAER service bulletin
Revision
level
190–21–0004 ....
Original
Date
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of a certain publication listed in the AD
as of February 8, 2007.
You may examine the AD
docket on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401,
Washington, DC.
Contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124–2207, for the service
information identified in this AD.
ADDRESSES:
December 2,
2005.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
December 21, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E6–22464 Filed 1–3–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; telephone
(425) 917–6447; fax (425) 917–6590.
[Docket No. FAA–2005–22629; Directorate
Identifier 2005–NM–089–AD; Amendment
39–14867; AD 2006–26–09]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
RIN 2120–AA64
You may examine the airworthiness
directive (AD) docket on the Internet at
https://dms.dot.gov or in person at the
Docket Management Facility office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Docket Management Facility office
(telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building at
the street address stated in the
ADDRESSES section.
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 737–200, –300, –400, and –500
Series Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
pwalker on PROD1PC65 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Boeing Model 737–200, –300, –400, and
–500 series airplanes. This AD requires
a one-time inspection of the frames
between station 360 and station 907 to
determine if a subject support bracket
for the air conditioning outlet extrusion
is installed, and related repetitive
investigative actions and repair if
necessary. This AD also provides an
optional preventive modification that
ends the repetitive investigative actions.
This AD also requires a one-time postmodification/repair inspection for
cracking of each repaired/modified
frame. This AD results from numerous
reports indicating that frame cracks
have been found at the attachment holes
for support brackets for the air
conditioning outlet extrusion. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct
such cracking, which, if the cracking
were to continue to grow, could result
in a severed frame. A severed frame,
combined with existing multi-site
damage at the stringer 10 lap splice,
could result in rapid decompression of
the airplane.
DATES: This AD becomes effective
February 8, 2007.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:35 Jan 04, 2007
Jkt 211001
Examining the Docket
Discussion
The FAA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would
apply to certain Boeing Model 737–200,
–300, –400, and –500 series airplanes.
That NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on October 6, 2005 (70
FR 58358). That NPRM proposed to
require a one-time inspection of frames
between station 360 and station 907 to
determine if a subject support bracket
for the air conditioning outlet extrusion
is installed, and related repetitive
investigative actions and repair if
necessary. That NPRM also proposed to
provide an optional preventive
modification that would end the
repetitive investigative actions. That
NPRM also proposed to require a onetime post-modification/repair
inspection for cracking of each repaired/
modified frame.
Comments
We provided the public the
opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have
considered the comments received.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Request To Extend Certain Compliance
Times
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM),
and the Air Transport Association
(ATA), on behalf of United Airlines
(UAL) and US Airways, ask that the
compliance time for the inspection be
changed to coincide with scheduled
maintenance checks.
UAL notes that the 6,000–flight-cycle
interval for the post-modification/repair
inspection (between 18,000 and 24,000
flight cycles) does not fall into a
compatible maintenance opportunity.
UAL states that, when given the
opportunity by Boeing to review the
preliminary service bulletin, the
requirement for this inspection was
‘‘within 30,000 flight cycles.’’ UAL asks
if there is an alternative inspection
method, such as an open hole eddy
current inspection, which would extend
the 6,000–flight-cycle repetitive
inspection interval to 9,000 flight cycles
to align with a heavy maintenance
check.
US Airways adds that the repeat
inspection interval will have an adverse
impact on operations. US Airways also
adds that the repeat inspection interval
seems to be arbitrary and unreasonable,
and it imposes undue costs to the
airline. US Airways has been addressing
this issue since 1999, and notes that the
existing maintenance program currently
has a repeat inspection interval of
12,500 flight hours or approximately
9,375 flight cycles for the inspection for
frame cracks in this location. US
Airways adds that the inspection
program has proven adequate to find
and repair these cracks before they have
an adverse impact on the structural
integrity of the airplane. US Airways
concludes that the increased inspection
interval mentioned previously also
minimizes impact to fleet operations,
while still maintaining a sufficient level
of safety. US Airways requests that the
repeat inspection interval be increased
to align with the existing scheduled
heavy maintenance visits.
KLM states that page 3 of the NPRM,
under ‘‘Relevant Service Information,’’
specifies a compliance time of 5,000
flight cycles after the date of the service
bulletin for the initial inspection, and
an interval of 6,000 flight cycles for the
repetitive inspections. KLM adds that
the inspection is applicable to all
frames, which amounts to 35 frames on
the left- and right-hand sides, for a total
of 70 inspection areas on a Boeing
Model 737–300 airplane. Due to the
extent of this work, the inspection in the
NPRM must be accomplished during a
planned maintenance check, preferably
a D-check when the support brackets are
E:\FR\FM\04JAR1.SGM
04JAR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 2 (Thursday, January 4, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 247-252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22464]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2006-25643; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-135-AD;
Amendment 39-14869; AD 2006-26-11]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 and ERJ 190 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 and ERJ 190 airplanes. This AD requires
repetitive inspections to detect damaged smoke seals in the aft
avionics compartment, repair/replacement if any damage is found, and
reinforcement if no damage is found. This AD also requires eventual
replacement of all smoke seals in the aft avionics compartment with
new, improved seals having new part numbers, which terminates the
repetitive inspections. This AD results from a report of damaged smoke
seals in the aft avionics compartment of the affected airplanes. We are
issuing this AD to prevent smoke from penetrating into the passenger
cabin during a fire in the avionics compartment.
DATES: This AD becomes effective February 8, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of February 8,
2007.
ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL-401, Washington, DC.
Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box
343-CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos--SP, Brazil, for service
information identified in this AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601
[[Page 248]]
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-
1175; fax (425) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Examining the Docket
You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the
Internet at https://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management
Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office
(telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif
Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.
Discussion
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain EMBRAER Model
ERJ 170 and ERJ 190 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal
Register on August 21, 2006 (71 FR 48490). That NPRM proposed to
require repetitive inspections to detect damaged smoke seals in the aft
avionics compartment, repair/replacement if any damage is found, and
reinforcement if no damage is found. That AD also proposed to require
eventual replacement of all smoke seals in the aft avionics compartment
with new, improved seals having new part numbers, which would terminate
the repetitive inspections.
Comments
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.
Request To Withdraw the NPRM
EMBRAER states that an AD does not apply in this case because there
is no unsafe condition associated with this failure mode. EMBRAER
explains that the smoke seals in the aft avionics compartment are
installed to demonstrate compliance with section 25.831(c) of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.831(c)). EMBRAER states that
the configuration of the smoke seals was approved during the ERJ 170/
190 certification campaign, based on the procedures established by
Advisory Circular AC 25-9A (``Smoke Detection, Penetration, and
Evacuation Tests and Related Flight Manual Emergency Procedures''),
dated January 6, 1994, which, in part, provides guidelines for
conducting certification tests relating to smoke detection,
penetration, and evacuation. EMBRAER states that the smoke penetration
test was carried out under critical conditions with a very large amount
of smoke, and confirmed that the smoke seal is an efficient smoke
barrier. EMBRAER also states that the potential source of smoke coming
from the aft avionics compartment is residual smoke coming from the
electronic equipment, which is designed not to generate fire.
Therefore, EMBRAER states that no fire event is expected in the region,
only a small amount of smoke.
EMBRAER also addresses the damage on the smoke seal and states that
all of the reported cases most likely happened during maintenance.
EMBRAER states that these small damaged areas would not prevent the
smoke seal from working satisfactorily as a smoke barrier, and that
even in case of an unexpected smoke generation in the area, only a
small amount of smoke would enter the passenger compartment. EMBRAER
points out that the presence of smoke wisps in the passenger
compartment was considered in the environmental system safety
assessment, and that there are crew actions defined to mitigate this
condition.
We disagree that an AD does not apply in this case. EMBRAER has not
provided sufficient technical justification that damaged smoke seals in
the aft avionics compartment of the affected airplanes are not a
potentially serious safety problem. Specifically, EMBRAER does not
state whether it has performed smoke penetration testing with damaged
or worn seals. EMBRAER also does not state if it has performed flight
testing or only ground testing for smoke penetration. Finally, EMBRAER
states that it has defined crew actions to mitigate wisps of smoke
entering the cabin but does not refer to a documented cabin smoke
evacuation procedure in the airplane flight manual to support this
claim.
We have determined that an unsafe condition exists, and that
issuing an AD is the appropriate way to correct an unsafe condition. In
addition, Agencia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC), which
is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, issued Brazilian
airworthiness directives 2006-05-04 (for Model ERJ 170 airplanes) and
2006-05-07 (for Model ERJ 190 airplanes), both effective June 14, 2006,
to address the subject unsafe condition. ANAC has not withdrawn their
airworthiness directives, and has not advised us that it plans to do
so. If EMBRAER can provide additional information to substantiate its
statements, we may consider further rulemaking then. We have not
changed the AD in this regard.
Request To Change Incorporation of Certain Information
The Modification and Replacement of Parts Association (MARPA),
states that, typically, airworthiness directives are based on service
information originating with the type certificate holder or its
suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer service documents are privately
authored instruments generally having copyright protection against
duplication and distribution. MARPA notes that when a service document
is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an
airworthiness directive, it loses its private, protected status and
becomes a public document. MARPA adds that if a service document is
used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be
referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document; by
definition, public laws must be public, which means they cannot rely
upon private writings. MARPA is concerned that the failure to
incorporate essential service information could result in a court
decision invalidating the AD.
MARPA adds that incorporated by reference service documents should
be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management
System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA notes
that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method is
brevity, to keep from expanding the Federal Register needlessly by
publishing documents already in the hands of the affected individuals;
traditionally, ``affected individuals'' means aircraft owners and
operators, who are generally provided service information by the
manufacturer. MARPA adds that a new class of affected individuals has
emerged, since the majority of aircraft maintenance is now performed by
specialty shops instead of aircraft owners and operators. MARPA notes
that this new class includes maintenance and repair organizations,
component servicing and repair shops, parts purveyors and distributors,
and organizations manufacturing or servicing alternatively certified
parts under part 21 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part
21), section 21.303 (parts manufacturer approval (PMA)). MARPA adds
that the concept of brevity is now nearly archaic, as documents exist
more frequently in electronic format than on paper. Therefore, MARPA
asks that the service documents deemed essential to the accomplishment
of the NPRM be incorporated by reference into the
[[Page 249]]
regulatory instrument, and published in the DMS.
We understand MARPA's comment concerning incorporation by
reference. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) requires that
documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD
be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking.
This final rule incorporates by reference the documents necessary for
the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we
point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do
become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection.
For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to
obtain copies of the referenced service information.
Additionally, we do not publish service documents in DMS. We are
currently reviewing our practice of publishing proprietary service
information. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this
issue, and have made a final determination, we will consider whether
our current practice needs to be revised. However, we consider that to
delay this AD action for that reason would be inappropriate, since we
have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that the
requirements in this AD must be accomplished to ensure continued
safety. Therefore, we have not changed the AD in this regard.
Request To Reference PMA Parts
MARPA also states that type certificate holders in their service
documents universally ignore the possible existence of PMA parts. MARPA
states that this is especially true with foreign manufacturers where
the concept may not exist or be implemented in the country of origin.
MARPA points out that the service document upon which an airworthiness
directive is based frequently will require removing a certain part-
numbered part and installing a different part-numbered part as a
corrective action. According to MARPA, this runs afoul of section
21.303 (``Parts Manufacturer Approval'') of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 21.303), which permits the development,
certification, and installation of alternatively certified parts.
MARPA further states that installing a certain part-numbered part
to the exclusion of all other parts is not a favored general practice.
MARPA states that such an action has the dual effect of preventing, in
some cases, the installation of a perfectly good part; while at the
same time prohibiting the development of new parts permitted under
section 21.303. According to MARPA, such a prohibition runs the risk of
taking the AD out of the realm of safety and into the world of
economics, since prohibiting the development, sale, and use of a
perfectly airworthy part has nothing to do with safety. MARPA states
that courts could easily construe such actions as being outside the
statutory basis of the AD (safety) and, as such, unenforceable. MARPA
adds that courts are reluctant to find portions of a rule unenforceable
since they lack the knowledge and authority to re-write requirements,
and are thus generally inclined to simply void the entire rule.
We infer that MARPA would like the AD to permit installation of any
equivalent PMA parts so that it is not necessary for an operator to
request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in order
to install an ``alternatively certified'' PMA part. Whether an
alternative part resolves the unsafe condition can be determined only
on a case-by-case basis, based on a complete understanding of the
unsafe condition. We are not currently aware of any such parts. Our
policy is that, in order for operators to replace a part with one that
is not specified in the AD, they must request an AMOC. This is
necessary so that we can make a specific determination that an
alternative part is or is not susceptible to the same unsafe condition.
In response to MARPA's statement regarding running afoul of section
21.303 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.303), under which
the FAA issues PMAs, this statement appears to reflect a
misunderstanding of the relationship between ADs and the certification
procedural regulations of 14 CFR part 21. Those regulations, including
section 21.303, are intended to ensure that aeronautical products
comply with the applicable airworthiness standards. But ADs are issued
when, notwithstanding those procedures, we become aware of unsafe
conditions in these products or parts. Therefore, an AD takes
precedence over design approvals when we identify an unsafe condition,
and mandating installation of a certain part number in an AD is not at
variance with section 21.303.
The AD provides a means of compliance for operators to ensure that
the identified unsafe condition is addressed appropriately. For an
unsafe condition attributable to a part, the AD normally identifies the
replacement parts necessary to obtain that compliance. As stated in
section 39.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.7),
``Anyone who operates a product that does not meet the requirements of
an applicable airworthiness directive is in violation of this
section.'' Unless an operator obtains approval for an AMOC, replacing a
part with one not specified by the AD would make the operator subject
to an enforcement action and result in a civil penalty. No change to
the AD is necessary in this regard.
Request for Compliance With FAA Order 8040.2/Agreement on Parts
Replacement
MARPA also points out that the NPRM, as written, does not comply
with proposed Order 8040.2 (AD Process for Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information (MCAI)), which states in the PMA section:
``MCAI that require replacement or installation of certain parts could
have replacement parts approved under 14 CFR Sec. 21.303 based on a
finding of identicality. We have determined that any parts approved
under this regulation and installed should be subject to the actions of
our AD and included in the applicability of our AD.''
MARPA states that in this case, certain seals have been determined
to be defective and must be replaced with parts not containing the
identified defect. MARPA has reviewed both the MARPA PMA database and
the FAA's database for possible PMA alternatives to the defective
seals, and found none. MARPA states that this does not guarantee that
such parts do not now exist or may not exist in the future and believes
the proposed regulatory action should address the possibility that
there are or will be PMA parts matching those determined not to be
airworthy. MARPA has noted that the FAA frequently states its policy of
identifying defective parts only when they are known, but MARPA is of
the opinion that the FAA's state of mind is irrelevant when
constructing enforceable regulatory actions. MARPA believes that
incorporating the language specified in proposed FAA Order 8040.2
should adequately address this concern.
MARPA points out that the Small Airplane Directorate has developed
a blanket statement that resolves this issue. The statement includes
words similar to that in the proposed Order 8040.2. MARPA also points
out that the Engine and Rotocraft Directorates avoid the issue by
specifying ``airworthy parts'' be installed, leaving the determination
of exactly which parts to the discretion of the installer.
MARPA further states that because the NPRM differs markedly in
treatment of this issue from that of the other directorates, the
mandates contained in
[[Page 250]]
Section 1, paragraph (b)(10) of Executive Order 12866 are not being
met. This paragraph requires that all agencies act uniformly on a given
issue. MARPA therefore requests that we take steps to bring the
universe of PMA parts under the appropriate scope of this AD both with
respect to possible defective PMA parts and the use of possible present
or future approved parts.
We infer that MARPA would like the Transport Airplane Directorate
to include words similar to those quoted from proposed Order 8040.2 in
our ADs. We disagree. The order has been approved and released as Order
8040.5 (AD Process for Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI)), dated September 29, 2006. The approved order does not include
the requested language.
Request To Append Certain Language
MARPA also requests that we append the language in paragraph (f)(2)
of the NPRM to add the following words, ``or FAA-approved equivalent
part number.'' MARPA contends that the addition of those words would
remove any possible conflict with 14 CFR 21.303 that may be raised with
respect to the unmodified text in paragraph (f)(2) of the NPRM.
We recognize the need for standardization on this issue and
currently are in the process of reviewing it at the national level. The
Transport Airplane Directorate considers that to delay this particular
AD action would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an
unsafe condition exists and that replacement of certain parts must be
accomplished to ensure continued safety. Therefore, no change has been
made to the final rule in this regard.
Explanation of Change to Applicability
We have revised the applicability of the existing AD to identify
model designations as published in the most recent type certificate
data sheet for the affected models.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments received, and determined that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously.
We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic
burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
Costs of Compliance
The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators
to comply with this AD.
Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Work labor Cost per Number of U.S.-
Action hours rate per Parts airplane registered Fleet cost
hour airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection, per inspection cycle........ 1 $80 None....................... $80, per 78 $6,240.
inspection
cycle
Reinforcement........................... 1 80 Operator supplied.......... $80, per 78 $6,240.
inspection
cycle
Replacement............................. 8 80 $244 to $265............... $884 to $905 78 $68,952 to $70,590.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
We have 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 DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 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. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec. 39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
2006-26-11 Empresa brasileira De Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):
Amendment 39-14869. Docket No. FAA-2006-25643; Directorate
Identifier 2006-NM-135-AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective February 8, 2007.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
[[Page 251]]
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to the airplanes identified in Table 1 of
this AD, certificated in any category.
Table 1.--Airplanes Affected by This AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As identified in EMBRAER
EMBRAER Model-- service bulletin--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, -100 170-21-0017, Revision 01, dated
SU, -200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU February 15, 2006.
airplanes.
ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, and -100 IGW 190-21-0003, Revision 01, dated
airplanes. February 15, 2006.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from a report of damaged smoke seals in the
aft avionics compartment of the affected airplanes. We are issuing
this AD to prevent smoke from penetrating into the passenger cabin
during a fire in the avionics compartment.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Service Bulletin References
(f) The term ``service bulletin,'' as used in this AD, means the
Accomplishment Instructions of the following service bulletins, as
applicable:
(1) For the inspections, applicable corrective actions, and
reinforcement specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: EMBRAER Service
Bulletins 170-21-0017, Revision 01, dated February 15, 2006 (for
Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, -100 SU, -200 LR, -200 STD,
and -200 SU airplanes); and 190-21-0003, Revision 01, dated February
15, 2006 (for Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, and -100 IGW
airplanes); and
(2) For the replacement specified in paragraph (h) of this AD:
EMBRAER Service Bulletins 170-21-0018, Revision 01, dated February
15, 2006 (for Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, -100 SU, -200
LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes); and 190-21-0004, dated
December 2, 2005 (for Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, and -100 IGW
airplanes).
Inspections and Reinforcement
(g) Within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD:
Do a detailed inspection for damaged smoke seals in the aft avionics
compartment; and, following the inspection, before further flight,
reinforce around the Velcro fasteners by installing silver tape if
no damage is found, and do all applicable corrective actions if any
damage is found. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 1,200 flight hours until the replacement required by
paragraph (h) of this AD is done. Where the applicable service
bulletin specifies reinforcing around the Velcro fasteners by
installing silver tape if no damage is found during the detailed
inspection, that reinforcement must be done the first time; it is
required again only if damage is found during any repeat inspection.
Do all actions in accordance with the applicable service bulletin
specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. If any damage exceeds the
limits specified in the applicable service bulletin: Before further
flight, do the replacement in paragraph (h) of this AD.
Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''
Replacement
(h) Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD: Replace the smoke seal in the aft avionics compartment with a
new, improved seal, having a new part number, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin
specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Doing this replacement
terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (g)
of this AD.
Parts Installation
(i) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
smoke seal in the aft avionics compartment on any airplane that has
part number 170-96563-509, -511, -513, -515, -517, -519, -521, or -
523; 171-04768-501, -503, -505, or -507; 190-15062-501, -503, -505,
or -507; or 190-15902-501, -503, -505, or -507.
Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issues of Service Bulletins
(j) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the applicable service bulletins identified in Table
2 of this AD, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
Table 2.--Previous Issues of Service Bulletins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMBRAER service bulletin Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
170-21-0017............................... December 29, 2005.
170-21-0018............................... December 2, 2005.
190-21-0003............................... December 29, 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(k)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with Sec.
39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards
Certificate Holding District Office.
Related Information
(l) Brazilian airworthiness directives 2006-05-04 (for Model ERJ
170 airplanes) and 2006-05-07 (for Model ERJ 190 airplanes), both
effective June 14, 2006, also address the subject of this AD.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(m) You must use the service information specified in Table 3 of
this AD, as applicable, to perform the actions that are required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these
documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box
343--CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos--SP, Brazil, for a copy of this
service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at
https://dms.dot.gov ; or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at the NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to https://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.
Table 3.--Material Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMBRAER service bulletin Revision level Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
170-21-0017..................... 01................ February 15, 2006.
170-21-0018..................... 01................ February 15, 2006.
190-21-0003..................... 01................ February 15, 2006.
[[Page 252]]
190-21-0004..................... Original.......... December 2, 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 21, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E6-22464 Filed 1-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
