9814 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Related Information 

(i) Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness 

Directive 2009–04–01, dated April 29, 2009; 

and the TRs to Appendix A—Part 2 of the 

Embraer 170 Maintenance Review Board 

Report MRB–1621, identified in Table 2 of 

this AD; for related information. 

TABLE 2—TEMPORARY REVISIONS

Temporary 

revisions Date 

TR 4–1 ............... October 15, 2007. 

TR 4–3 ............... December 6, 2007. 

TR 4–4 ............... January 18, 2008. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

25, 2010. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4504 Filed 3–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0175; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–187–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa 

Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. 

(EMBRAER) Model ERJ 190–100 STD,– 

100 LR,–100 IGW,–200 STD,–200 LR, 

and–200 IGW Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This proposed 

AD results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: During ERJ 190 airplane 

full scale fatigue test, cracks were found 

in some structural components of the 

airplane. Analysis of these cracks 

resulted in modifications on the 

airplane Airworthiness Limitation Items 

(ALI), to include new inspections tasks 

or modification of existing ones and its 

respective thresholds and intervals. 

Failure to inspect these components 

according to the new tasks, thresholds 

and intervals could prevent a timely 

detection of fatigue cracks. Undetected 

fatigue cracks in these areas could 

adversely affect the structural integrity 

of these airplanes. 

The proposed AD would require 

actions that are intended to address the 

unsafe condition described in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 19, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Empresa 

Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. 

(EMBRAER), Technical Publications 

Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria 

Lima, 2170—Putim—12227–901 Sa ̃o 

Jose dos Campos—SP—BRASIL; 

telephone: +55 12 3927–5852 or +55 12 

3309–0732; fax: +55 12 3927–7546; email: distrib@embraer.com.br; Internet: 

http://www.flyembraer.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221 

or 425–227–1152. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenny Kaulia, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–2848; fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2010–0175; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–187–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD based on those comments. 

We have lengthened the 30-day 

comment period for proposed ADs that 

address MCAI originated by aviation 

authorities of other countries to provide 

adequate time for interested parties to 

submit comments. The comment period 

for these proposed ADs is now typically 

45 days, which is consistent with the 

comment period for domestic transport 

ADs. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

The Ageˆncia Nacional de Aviac ̧a ̃o 

Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation 

authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian 

Airworthiness Directive 2009–04–02, 

effective April 29, 2009 (referred to after 

this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe 

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

During ERJ 190 airplane full scale fatigue 

test, cracks were found in some structural 

components of the airplane. Analysis of these 

cracks resulted in modifications on the 

airplane Airworthiness Limitation Items 

(ALI), to include new inspections tasks or 

modification of existing ones and its 

respective thresholds and intervals. 

Failure to inspect these components 

according to the new tasks, thresholds and 

intervals could prevent a timely detection of 

fatigue cracks. Undetected fatigue cracks in 

these areas could adversely affect the 

structural integrity of these airplanes. 

* * * * * 

The corrective action is revising the 

Airworthiness Limitations Section of 

the Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness to incorporate new and 

modified structural inspections. You 

may obtain further information by 

examining the MCAI in the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Embraer has issued Temporary 

Revision (TR) 2–5, dated December 6, 

2007; and TR 2–6, dated February 12, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 9815 

2008; to Appendix A, Part 2, 

Airworthiness Limitation Inspections, of 

the Embraer 190 Maintenance Review 

Board Report MRB–1928. The actions 

described in this service information are 

intended to correct the unsafe condition 

identified in the MCAI. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of another 

country, and is approved for operation 

in the United States. Pursuant to our 

bilateral agreement with the State of 

Design Authority, we have been notified 

of the unsafe condition described in the 

MCAI and service information 

referenced above. We are proposing this 

AD because we evaluated all pertinent 

information and determined an unsafe 

condition exists and is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of the same 

type design. 

Differences Between This AD and the 

MCAI or Service Information 

We have reviewed the MCAI and 

related service information and, in 

general, agree with their substance. But 

we might have found it necessary to use 

different words from those in the MCAI 

to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. 

operators and is enforceable. In making 

these changes, we do not intend to differ 

substantively from the information 

provided in the MCAI and related 

service information. 

We might also have proposed 

different actions in this AD from those 

in the MCAI in order to follow FAA 

policies. Any such differences are 

highlighted in a NOTE within the 

proposed AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

Based on the service information, we 

estimate that this proposed AD would 

affect about 65 products of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about 1 work-hours per product to 

comply with the basic requirements of 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on 

these figures, we estimate the cost of the 

proposed AD on U.S. operators to be 

$5,525, or $85 per product. 

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 determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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 proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

Empresa Brasileira De Aeronautica S.A. 

(EMBRAER): Docket No. FAA–2010– 

0175; Directorate Identifier 2009–NM– 

187–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by April 19, 

2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Empresa 

Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) 

Model ERJ 190–100 STD, –100 LR, –100 IGW, 

–200 STD, –200 LR, and –200 IGW airplanes, 

certificated in any category. 

Note 1: This AD requires revisions to 

certain operator maintenance documents to 

include new inspections. Compliance with 

these inspections is required by 14 CFR 

91.403(c). For airplanes that have been 

previously modified, altered, or repaired in 

the areas addressed by these inspections, the 

operator may not be able to accomplish the 

inspections described in the revisions. In this 

situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), 

the operator must request approval for an 

alternative method of compliance according 

to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. The request 

should include a description of changes to 

the required inspections that will ensure the 

continued operational safety of the airplane. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53: Fuselage; 57: Wings. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

During ERJ 190 airplane full scale fatigue 

test, cracks were found in some structural 

components of the airplane. Analysis of these 

cracks resulted in modifications on the 

airplane Airworthiness Limitation Items 

(ALI), to include new inspections tasks or 

modification of existing ones and its 

respective thresholds and intervals. 

Failure to inspect these components 

according to the new tasks, thresholds and 

intervals could prevent a timely detection of 

fatigue cracks. Undetected fatigue cracks in 

these areas could adversely affect the 

structural integrity of these airplanes. 

* * * * * 

The corrective action is revising the 

Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of 

the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness 

to incorporate new and modified structural 

inspections. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, do the following 

actions. 

(1) Within 90 days after the effective date 

of this AD: Revise the ALS of the Instructions 

for Continued Airworthiness to include the 

tasks specified in Table 1 of this AD. These 

tasks are identified in Embraer Temporary 

Revision (TR) 2–5, dated December 6, 2007; 

and Embraer TR 2–6, dated February 12, 

2008; to Appendix A, Part 2, Airworthiness 

Limitation Inspections (ALI), of the Embraer 

190 Maintenance Review Board Report 

(MRBR) MRB–1928. 

Note 2: The actions required by paragraph 

(f)(1) of this AD may be done by inserting a 

copy of TR 2–5 and TR 2–6 into the ALS of 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
9816 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Embraer 190 MRBR MRB–1928. When these 

TRs have been included in general revisions 

of the Embraer 190 MRBR MRB–1928, the 

general revisions may be inserted in the 

Embraer 190 MRBR MRB–1928, provided the 

relevant information in the general revision 

is identical to that in TR 2–5 and TR 2–6, and 

the TRs may be removed. 

(2) The initial compliance times for the 

tasks specified in Embraer TR 2–5, dated 

December 6, 2007; and Embraer TR 2–6, 

dated February 12, 2008; start at the later of 

the times specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and 

(f)(2)(ii) of this AD. For certain tasks, the 

compliance times depend on the premodification and post-modification 

condition of the associated service bulletin, 

as specified in the ‘‘Applicability’’ column of 

the TRs. 

(i) Within the applicable threshold times 

specified in the TRs. 

(ii) At the applicable compliance time 

specified in Table 1 of this AD. 

TABLE 1—MRBR TRS AND TASKS, WITH COMPLIANCE TIMES

MRBR TR Subject MRBR task No. Compliance time 

TR 2–5 ................................... Wing stub main box lower skin and 

splices—internal.

57–01–002–0002 250 flight cycles after effective date of this 

AD. 

TR 2–5 ................................... Wing stub spar 3—internal/external .............. 57–01–008–0003 500 flight cycles after effective date of this 

AD. 

TR 2–5 ................................... Wing stub spar 3—external ........................... 57–01–008–0004 500 flight cycles after effective date of this 

AD. 

TR 2–5 ................................... Wing lower skin panel stringers—internal ..... 57–10–007–0004 500 flight cycles after effective date of this 

AD. 

TR 2–5 ................................... Wing main box rib 11—internal ..................... 57–10–012–0003 500 flight cycles after effective date of this 

AD. 

TR 2–6 ................................... Nose landing gear wheel well metallic structure.53–10–021–0004 500 flight cycles after effective date of this 

AD. 

(iii) Thereafter, except as provided in 

paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative 

replacement times or structural inspection 

intervals may be approved for these tasks. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 3: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: 

Although the MCAI specifies both revising 

the airworthiness limitations and doing 

repetitive inspections, this AD only specifies 

the revision. Requiring revision of the 

airworthiness limitations, rather than 

requiring individual repetitive inspections, is 

advantageous for operators because it allows 

them to record AD compliance status only at 

the time that they make the revision, rather 

than after every inspection. It also has the 

advantage of keeping all airworthiness 

limitations, whether imposed by original 

certification or by AD, in one place within 

the operator’s maintenance program, thereby 

reducing the risk of non-compliance because 

of oversight or confusion. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Send information to ATTN: Kenny Kaulia, 

Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 

227–2848; fax (425) 227–1149. Before using 

any approved AMOC on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies, notify your 

principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or 

principal avionics inspector (PAI), as 

appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, 

your local Flight Standards District Office. 

The AMOC approval letter must specifically 

reference this AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain corrective 

actions from a manufacturer or other source, 

use these actions if they are FAA-approved. 

Corrective actions are considered FAAapproved if they are approved by the State 

of Design Authority (or their delegated 

agent). You are required to assure the product 

is airworthy before it is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness 

Directive 2009–04–02, dated April 29, 2009; 

TR 2–5, dated December 6, 2007; and TR 2– 

6, dated February 12, 2008; for related 

information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

24, 2010. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4506 Filed 3–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0174; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–186–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa 

Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. 

(EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 and ERJ 

190 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above that would 

supersede an existing AD. This 

proposed AD results from mandatory 

continuing airworthiness information 

(MCAI) originated by an aviation 

authority of another country to identify 

and correct an unsafe condition on an 

aviation product. The MCAI for 

EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 describes the 

unsafe condition as: It has been found 

the occurrence of an engine in-flight 

shutdown caused by the LPCV [low 

pressure check valves] failing to close 

due to excessive wear, which leads to 

the concern that such fault may be 

present in both engines of a given 

aircraft. The MCAI for EMBRAER Model 

ERJ 190 describes the unsafe condition 

as: An occurrence of an uncommanded 

engine in-flight shutdown (IFSD) was 

reported, which was caused by an ERJ 

170 defective LPCV. The valve failed to 

close due to excessive wear. Despite 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS