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.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

17583

Vol. 65, No. 65

Tuesday, April 4, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–84–AD; Amendment

39–11654; AD 2000–06–13]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 737–200, –200C, –300, and –400

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Boeing Model 737–

200, –200C, –300, and –400 series

airplanes, that currently requires

repetitive visual inspections to detect

cracking of the corners of the door frame

and the cross beams of the aft cargo

door, and corrective actions, if

necessary. That AD also provides an

optional terminating action for certain

repetitive inspections. This amendment

requires repetitive high frequency eddy

current (HFEC) inspections, and

corrective actions, if necessary. This

amendment also mandates

accomplishment of the previously

optional terminating action. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent fatigue cracking of the corners

of the door frame and the cross beams

of the aft cargo door, which could result

in rapid depressurization of the

airplane.

DATES: Effective May 9, 2000.

The incorporation by reference of

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–

52A1079, Revision 6, dated November

18, 1999, as listed in the regulations, is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of April 19, 2000.

The incorporation by reference of

Boeing Service Bulletin 737–52–1079,

Revision 5, dated May 16, 1996, as

listed in the regulations, was approved

previously by the Director of the Federal

Register as of December 24, 1998 (63 FR

67769, December 9, 1998).

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,

Washington 98124–2207. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington. 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 Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nenita Odesa, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2557;

fax (425) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)

by superseding AD 98–25–06,

amendment 39–10931 (63 FR 67769,

December 9, 1998), which is applicable

to certain Boeing Model 737–200,

–200C, –300, and –400 series airplanes,

was published in the Federal Register

on August 12, 1999 (64 FR 43950). The

action proposed to require continuing

the current repetitive visual inspections

to detect cracking of the corners of the

door frame and the cross beams of the

aft cargo door, and corrective actions, if

necessary. The action also proposed to

require repetitive high frequency eddy

current (HFEC) inspections, and

corrective actions, if necessary.

Additionally, the action proposed to

mandate accomplishment of the

previously optional terminating action.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Concurrence with the Proposal

One commenter concurs with the

proposal.

Request to Reference New Service

Information

One commenter, the manufacturer,

states that the proposal should reference

the latest Alert Service Bulletin, 737–

52A1079, Revision 6, dated November

18, 1999. That revision adds procedures

describing a High frequency eddy

current (HFEC) inspection for cracks in

the frames of doors that do not have

steel modification angles, inspection for

cracks in the upper and lower beam

outer chord, repair instructions for the

lower beam outer chord, and other

various changes.

The FAA concurs that Revision 6 of

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–

52A1079 may be specified in the final

rule as an alternative method of

compliance with the requirements of

this AD. The final rule has been

changed to specify that addition.

Request to Revise the Compliance Time

of Paragraph (d) of the Proposal

One commenter, the manufacturer,

requests that the compliance time for

the high frequency eddy current

inspections specified in paragraph (d) of

the proposal be revised from ‘‘within

4,500 flight cycles or one year after the

effective date of the AD,’’ to within

12,000 flight cycles after installation of

the door. The commenter states that if

an operator has an accurate accounting

of the history of the cargo door, a

threshold of 12,000 flight cycles would

provide no adverse effect on safety.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request to revise the

compliance time. Because cargo doors

are rotable parts, i.e., they may be

moved from one airplane to another, an

airplane’s maintenance records may not

accurately reflect the total number of

flight cycles accumulated on the door.

However, under the provisions of

paragraph (f) of the final rule, the FAA

may approve 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 Extend the Compliance Time

of Paragraph (e) of the Proposal

One commenter, the manufacturer,

requests that the compliance time for

the accomplishment of the required

modification be revised to be in

consonance with the compliance

threshold required by AD 90–06–02,

17584 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

amendment 39–6489 (55 FR 8372,

March 7, 1990). The new compliance

time would then read, ‘‘prior to the

accumulation of 75,000 total flight

cycles.’’ The commenter points out that

compliance times should be based on

flight cycles rather than calendar time.

Fatigue crack growth rates are a function

of pressurization cycles, not elapsed

time, and a cycle-based compliance

threshold would be more appropriate

for the proposed rule.

The FAA does not concur that the

compliance time should be changed to

specify a compliance time of 75,000

total flight cycles. Based on a recent

depressurization event that occurred

much earlier than 75,000 flight cycles,

the FAA has determined that a

threshold of 75,000 total flight cycles

does not provide for an adequate level

of safety. However, the FAA

acknowledges that fatigue cracking is a

function of pressurization cycles and

concurs that a compliance time based

on flight cycles may be added. Based on

recent information, the FAA has

determined that a compliance time of

12,000 total flight cycles is an

appropriate compliance time and has

added this to the compliance time

specified in paragraph (e) of the final

rule.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the changes

previously described. The FAA has

determined that these changes will

neither increase the economic burden

on any operator nor increase the scope

of the AD.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 1,636 Model

737 series airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 707 airplanes of U.S.

registry will be affected by this AD.

The detailed visual inspections that

currently are required by AD 98–25–06,

and retained in this AD, take

approximately 2 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

currently required inspections on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $84,840, or

$120 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The new high frequency eddy current

inspections that are required by this AD

will take approximately 4 work hours

per airplane to accomplish, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the new inspections required by this

AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$169,680, or $240 per airplane, per

inspection cycle.

The modification that is required by

this AD action will take approximately

144 work hours per airplane to

accomplish, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts will

cost approximately $4,530 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the modification required by this AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$9,311,190, or $13,170 per airplane.

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.

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

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

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

removing amendment 39–10931 (63 FR

67769, December 9, 1998), and by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD), Amendment 39–11654, to read as

follows:

2000–06–13 Boeing: Amendment 39–11654.

Docket 99–NM–84–AD. Supersedes AD

98–25–06, Amendment 39–10931.

Applicability: The following airplane

models, certificated in any category:

• Model 737–200 and –200C series

airplanes, line numbers 6 through 873

inclusive;

• Model 737–200, –200C, –300, and –400

series airplanes; line numbers 874 through

1642 inclusive; equipped with an aft cargo

door having Boeing part number (P/N) 65–

47952–1 or P/N 65–47952–524; excluding:

1. Those airplanes on which that door has

been modified in accordance with Boeing

Service Bulletin 737–52–1079; or

2. Those airplanes on which the door

assembly having P/N 65–47952–524 includes

four straps (P/N’s 65–47952–139, 65–47952–

140, 65–47952–141, and 65–47952–142) and

a thicker lower cross beam web (P/N 65–

47952–157).

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in

the area subject to the requirements of this

AD. For airplanes that have been modified,

altered, or repaired so that the performance

of the requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent fatigue cracking of the corners

of the door frame and the cross beams of the

aft cargo door, which could result in rapid

depressurization of the airplane, accomplish

the following:

Restatement of the Requirements of AD 98–

25–06:

Inspections and Corrective Actions

(a) Within 90 days or 700 flight cycles after

December 24, 1998 (the effective date of AD

98–25–06, amendment 39–10931), whichever

occurs later, perform an internal detailed

visual inspection to detect cracking of the

corners of the door frame and the cross

beams of the aft cargo door, in accordance

with Boeing Service Bulletin 737–52–1079,

Revision 5, dated May 16, 1996, or Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1079,

Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999.

(1) If no cracking is detected, accomplish

the requirements of either paragraph (a)(1)(i)

or (a)(1)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Repeat the internal visual inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,500

flight cycles. Or

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 17585

(ii) Prior to further flight, modify the

corners of the door frame and the cross

beams of the aft cargo door in accordance

with the service bulletin. Accomplishment of

such modification constitutes terminating

action for the repetitive inspection

requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this AD.

(2) If any cracking is detected in the upper

or lower cross beams, prior to further flight,

modify the cracked beam in accordance with

paragraph III.C. of Part I of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin. Accomplishment of such

modification constitutes terminating action

for the repetitive inspection requirements of

paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this AD for the repaired

beam.

(3) If any cracking is detected in the

forward or aft upper door frame, prior to

further flight, repair the frame and modify

the corners of the door frame of the aft cargo

door, in accordance with paragraph III.E. of

Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of

the service bulletin, except as provided by

paragraph (b) of this AD. Accomplishment of

such modification constitutes terminating

action for the repetitive inspection

requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this AD

for the upper door frame.

Note 2: Cracks of the forward or aft upper

door frame, regardless of length, must be

repaired prior to further flight in accordance

with paragraph III.E. of Part I of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin.

(4) If any cracking is detected in the

forward or aft lower door frame, prior to

further flight, replace the damaged frame

with a new frame, and modify the corners of

the door frame of the aft cargo door, in

accordance with paragraph III.F. of Part I of

the Accomplishment Instructions of the

service bulletin. Accomplishment of such

modification constitutes terminating action

for the repetitive inspection requirements of

paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this AD for the lower

door frame.

(b) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 737–52–

1079, Revision 5, dated May 16, 1996, or

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin, 737–52A1079,

Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999,

specifies that certain repairs are to be

accomplished in accordance with

instructions received from Boeing, this AD

requires that, prior to further flight, such

repairs be accomplished in accordance with

a method approved by the Manager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate.

New Requirements of This AD

Inspections and Corrective Actions

(c) If any cracking of the outer chord of the

upper or lower cross beams of the aft cargo

door is detected as a result of any inspection

required by paragraph (a) of this AD, prior to

further flight, repair in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager, Seattle

ACO; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin, 737–

52A1079, Revision 6, dated November 18,

1999; or in accordance with data meeting the

type certification basis of the airplane

approved by a Boeing Company Designated

Engineering Representative who has been

authorized by the FAA to make such

findings.

(d) Within 4,500 flight cycles or one year

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs later: Perform a high frequency eddy

current inspection (HFEC) to detect cracking

of the four corners of the door frame of the

aft cargo door, in accordance with the

procedures specified in Boeing 737

Nondestructive Test Manual, Part 6, Chapter

51–00–00 (Figure 4 or Figure 23), or Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin, 737–52A1079,

Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999;

(1) If no cracking of the corners of the door

frame of the aft cargo door is detected, repeat

the HFEC inspections thereafter at intervals

not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles until

accomplishment of the modification

specified in paragraph (e) of this AD.

(2) If any cracking of the corners of the

door frame of the aft cargo door is detected,

prior to further flight, replace the damaged

frame with a new frame, and modify the four

corners of the door frame, in accordance with

Parts II and III of the Accomplishment

Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737–

52–1079, Revision 5, dated May 16, 1996, or

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1079,

Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999.

Accomplishment of such modification

constitutes terminating action for the

repetitive inspection requirements of

paragraph (d)(1) of this AD for that door

frame.

Terminating Action

(e) Prior to the accumulation of 12,000 total

flight cycles, or within 4 years after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later: Modify the four corners of the door

frame and the cross beams of the aft cargo

door, in accordance with Part II of the

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing

Service Bulletin 737–52–1079, Revision 5,

dated May 16, 1996, or Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 737–52A1079, Revision 6, dated

November 18, 1999. Accomplishment of such

modification constitutes terminating action

for the repetitive inspection requirements of

this AD.

Note 3: Accomplishment of the

modification required by paragraph (a) of AD

90–06–02, amendment 39–6489, is

considered acceptable for compliance with

paragraph (e) of this AD.

Note 4: Modification of the corners of the

door frame and the cross beams of the aft

cargo door accomplished prior to the

effective date of this AD in accordance with

Boeing Service Bulletin 737–52–1079, dated

December 16, 1983; Revision 1, dated

December 15, 1988; Revision 2, dated July 20,

1989; Revision 3, dated May 17, 1990;

Revision 4, dated February 21, 1991; is

considered acceptable for compliance with

paragraph (e) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(f)(1) An alternative method of compliance

or adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Seattle

ACO. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Seattle ACO.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance,

approved previously in accordance with AD

98–25–06, amendment 39–10931, are

approved as alternative methods of

compliance with this AD.

Note 5: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(g) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

(h) Except as provided in paragraphs (b),

(c), (d), and (d)(1) of this AD, the actions

shall be done in accordance with Boeing

Service Bulletin 737–52–1079, Revision 5,

dated May 16, 1996, or Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 737–52A1079, Revision 6, dated

November 18, 1999.

(1) The incorporation by reference of

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–52A1079,

Revision 6, dated November 18, 1999, is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51.

(2) The incorporation by reference of

Boeing Service 737–52–1079, Revision 5,

dated May 16, 1996, was approved

previously by the Director of the Federal

Register as of December 24, 1998 (63 FR

67769, December 9, 1998).

(3) Copies may be obtained from Boeing

Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707,

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. Copies may

be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

(i) This amendment becomes effective on

May 9, 2000.

17586 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March

24, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–7877 Filed 4–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–203–AD; Amendment

39–11655; AD 2000–07–01]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa

Brasileira de Aeronautica, S.A.

(EMBRAER), Model EMB–145 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all Empresa Brasileira de

Aeronautica, S.A. (EMBRAER), Model

EMB–145 series airplanes, that currently

requires repetitive emergency extension

(free-fall) functional tests of the nose

landing gear (NLG), and lubrication of

all NLG hinge points, to ensure that the

NLG extends and locks down properly;

and corrective action, if necessary. This

amendment also requires a terminating

modification that includes replacement

of the NLG door solenoid valve with an

improved valve; replacement of the

landing gear (LG) safety pins holder

with an improved holder; and

replacement of the NLG maneuvering

actuator with an improved actuator.

This amendment also limits the

applicability of the existing AD. This

amendment is prompted by issuance of

mandatory continuing airworthiness

information by a foreign civil

airworthiness authority. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent failure of the NLG to extend and

lock down properly, which could result

in damage to the airplane structure, and

consequent reduced controllability of

the airplane upon landing.

DATES: Effective May 9, 2000.

The incorporation by reference of

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–32–

0036, dated February 1, 1999; and

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–32–

0037, dated February 12, 1999, as listed

in the regulations, is approved by the

Director of the Federal Register as of

May 9, 2000.

The incorporation by reference of

EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin 145–

32–A029, dated April 15, 1998, as listed

in the regulations, was approved

previously by the Director of the Federal

Register as of July 9, 1998 (63 FR 34274,

June 24, 1998).

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 FAA, Small

Airplane Directorate, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office, One Crown Center,

1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450,

Atlanta, Georgia; or at the Office of the

Federal Register 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob

Capezzuto, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Flight Test Branch, ACE–

116A, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,

Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office,

One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix

Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia

30349; telephone (770) 703–6071; fax

(770) 703–6097.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)

by superseding AD 98–13–34,

amendment 39–10625 (63 FR 34274,

June 24, 1998), which is applicable to

all Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica,

S.A. (EMBRAER), Model EMB–145

series airplanes, was published in the

Federal Register on February 2, 2000

(65 FR 4897). The action proposed to

continue to require repetitive emergency

extension (free-fall) functional tests of

the nose landing gear (NLG), and

lubrication of all NLG hinge points, to

ensure that the NLG extends and locks

down properly; and corrective action, if

necessary. The action also proposed to

require a terminating modification that

includes replacement of the NLG door

solenoid valve with an improved valve;

replacement of the landing gear (LG)

safety pins holder with an improved

holder; and replacement of the NLG

maneuvering actuator with an improved

actuator. Additionally, the action

proposed to limit the applicability of the

existing AD.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were submitted in response

to the proposal or the FAA’s

determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

The FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 66 airplanes

of U.S. registry that will be affected by

this AD.

The actions that are currently

required by AD 98–13–34, and continue

to be required by this AD, will take

approximately 4 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

currently required actions on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $15,840, or

$240 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The new replacements that are

required in this AD action will take

approximately 6 work hours (3 work

hours per airplane for the solenoid/

holder replacement) and 3 work hours

per airplane for the actuator

replacement, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. EMBRAER and

Libherr Aerospace Linberg have

previously committed to supplying the

necessary parts free of charge. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

replacements required by this AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$23,760, or $360 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the current or new requirements of this

AD action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted.

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