This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

41642 

Vol. 74, No. 158 

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0687; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–033–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 describes 

the unsafe condition as: It has been 

found the occurrence of two events of 

aircraft being dispatched with the cargo 

door opened without indication. In one 

of the events the aircraft took off with 

the cargo door opened. 

The unsafe condition is a cargo door 

opening during flight, which could 

result in reduced structural integrity 

and consequent rapid decompression of 

the airplane. 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 September 17, 

2009. 

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, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 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–2009–0687; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–033–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 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 

On April 17, 2007, we issued AD 

2007–06–53, Amendment 39–15035 (72 

FR 21088, April 30, 2007). That AD 

requires actions intended to address an 

unsafe condition on the products listed 

above. 

The preamble to AD 2007–06–53 

specifies that we consider the 

requirements ‘‘interim action’’ and that 

the manufacturer is developing a 

modification to address the unsafe 

condition. That AD explains that we 

might consider further rulemaking if a 

modification is developed, approved, 

and available. The manufacturer now 

has developed such a modification, and 

we have determined that further 

rulemaking is indeed necessary; this 

proposed AD follows from that 

determination. 

The Ageˆncia Nacional de Aviac ̧a ̃o 

Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation 

authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian 

Airworthiness Directives 2007–03– 

01R1, effective June 9, 2008, and 2007– 

03–02R2, effective November 21, 2008 

(referred to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to 

correct an unsafe condition for the 

specified products. The MCAI states: 

It has been found the occurrence of two 

events of aircraft being dispatched with the 

cargo door opened without indication. In one 

of the events the aircraft took off with the 

cargo door opened. 

The unsafe condition is a cargo door 

opening during flight, which could 

result in reduced structural integrity 

and consequent rapid decompression of 

the airplane. Required actions include 

repetitive inspections of the forward 

and aft cargo doors to detect signs of 

interference between the lock handle 

and the aft edge liner assembly and 

reworking the assembly; a one-time 

inspection for signs of damage of the 

lateral roller fitting on the forward and 

aft cargo door frames at the fuselage and 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41643 

replacement of the roller if necessary, 

and modification of the cargo door, 

which ends the repetitive inspections. 

After accomplishing the modification, 

the actions include incorporating 

information into the maintenance 

program to include the operational 

(OPC) and functional (FNC) checks of 

the forward and aft cargo doors and 

accomplishing repetitive OPC and FNC 

checks. You may obtain further 

information by examining the MCAI in 

the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Embraer has issued Alert Service 

Bulletins 170–52–A036 (for Model ERJ 

170 airplanes) and 190–52–A018 (for 

Model ERJ 190 airplanes); both Revision 

01, both dated March 23, 2007. Embraer 

Alert Service Bulletins 170–52–A036 

and 190–52–A018, both dated March 12, 

2007, were referred to in the existing AD 

for accomplishing the required actions. 

No additional work is necessary for 

airplanes on which the original issue of 

the service information has been done. 

Embraer has also issued Service 

Bulletins 170–52–0041, Revision 01, 

dated June 13, 2008, and 170–52–0044, 

dated January 18, 2008 (for Model ERJ 

170 airplanes); and Service Bulletins 

190–52–0023, Revision 02, dated March 

11, 2008, and 190–52–0027 dated March 

20, 2008 (for Model ERJ 190 airplanes). 

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 145 products of U.S. 

registry. 

The actions that are required by AD 

2007–06–53 and retained in this 

proposed AD take about 1 work-hour 

per product, at an average labor rate of 

$80 per work hour. Based on these 

figures, the estimated cost of the 

currently required actions is $80 per 

product. 

We estimate that it would take about 

7 work-hours per product to comply 

with the new basic requirements of this 

proposed AD. The average labor rate is 

$80 per work-hour. Required parts 

would cost about $17,162 per product. 

Where the service information lists 

required parts costs that are covered 

under warranty, we have assumed that 

there will be no charge for these costs. 

As we do not control warranty coverage 

for affected parties, some parties may 

incur costs higher than estimated here. 

Based on these figures, we estimate the 

cost of the proposed AD on U.S. 

operators to be $2,569,690, or $17,722 

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 

removing Amendment 39–15035 (72 FR 

21088, April 30, 2007) and adding the 

following new AD: 

Empresa Brasileira De Aeronautica S.A. 

(EMBRAER): Docket No. FAA–2009– 

0687; Directorate Identifier 2009–NM– 

033–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by 

September 17, 2009. 

Affected ADs 

(b) The proposed AD supersedes AD 2007– 

06–53, Amendment 39–15035. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to EMBRAER Model 

ERJ 170–100 LR, –100 STD, –100 SE, –100 

SU, –200 LR, –200 STD, and –200 SU 

airplanes; and ERJ 190–100 STD, –100 LR, 

–100 IGW, –200 LR, –200 STD, and –200 

IGW airplanes; certificated in any category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 52: Doors. 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
41644 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

It has been found the occurrence of two 

events of aircraft being dispatched with the 

cargo door opened without indication. In one 

of the events the aircraft took off with the 

cargo door opened. 

The unsafe condition is a cargo door opening 

during flight, which could result in reduced 

structural integrity and consequent rapid 

decompression of the airplane. Required 

actions include repetitive inspections of the 

forward and aft cargo doors to detect signs of 

interference between the lock handle and the 

aft edge liner assembly and reworking the 

assembly; a one-time inspection for signs of 

damage of the lateral roller fitting on the 

forward and aft cargo door frames at the 

fuselage and replacement of the roller if 

necessary, and modification of the cargo 

door, which ends the repetitive inspections. 

After accomplishing the modification, the 

actions include incorporating information 

into the maintenance program to include the 

operational (OPC) and functional (FNC) 

checks of the forward and aft cargo doors and 

accomplishing repetitive OPC and FNC 

checks. 

Compliance 

(f) Required as indicated, unless 

accomplished previously. 

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2007– 

06–53, With New Service Information 

Preflight Verification of Correct Door Closure 

(g) For Model ERJ 170–100 LR, –100 STD, 

–100 SE, –100 SU, –200 LR, –200 STD, and 

–200 SU airplanes; and ERJ 190–100 STD, 

–100 LR, and –100 IGW airplanes: As of 24 

hours after May 7, 2007 (the effective date of 

AD 2007–06–53), before each flight after 

closing the cargo doors, verify that the 

forward and aft cargo doors are closed flush 

with the fuselage skin, and that all 4 latched 

and locked indicators at the bottom of each 

door are green. Persons qualified to do this 

verification are mechanics and flightcrew 

members. If it cannot be verified that both 

doors are closed flush with the fuselage skin, 

and that all 4 latched and locked indicators 

at the bottom of each door are green, repair 

before further flight. Repeat the verification 

before every flight until accomplishment of 

the actions required by paragraph (h) of this 

AD. 

Inspection for Interference and Damage 

(h) For Model ERJ 170–100 LR, –100 STD, 

–100 SE, –100 SU, –200 LR, –200 STD, and 

–200 SU airplanes; and ERJ 190–100 STD, 

–100 LR, and –100 IGW airplanes: Within 10 

days after May 7, 2007, do the actions 

specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and 

(h)(3) of this AD, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer 

Alert Service Bulletins 170–52–A036 (for 

Model ERJ 170 airplanes) or 190–52–A018 

(for Model ERJ 190 airplanes), both dated 

March 12, 2007; or Revision 01, both dated 

March 23, 2007; as applicable. As of the 

effective date of this AD, use Revision 01 of 

the service bulletins. 

(1) Remove the roller fitting cover plate on 

the forward and aft cargo door frames. 

(2) Perform a detailed inspection of the 

forward and aft cargo doors to detect signs of 

interference between the lock handle and the 

aft edge liner assembly. Then rework the aft 

edge liner assembly at the applicable time 

specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) or (h)(2)(ii) of 

this AD. 

(i) If any sign of interference is detected: 

Rework the assembly before further flight. 

(ii) If no sign of interference is detected: 

Rework the assembly within 150 flight cycles 

after the inspection. 

(3) Perform a detailed inspection for signs 

of damage of the lateral roller fitting on the 

forward and aft cargo door frames at the 

fuselage. If any damage is found, replace the 

lateral roller fitting before further flight with 

a new roller fitting having the same part 

number, in accordance with the applicable 

service bulletin. 

(4) Actions done before May 7, 2007, in 

accordance with Embraer Alert Service 

Bulletin 170–52–A036 or 190–52–A018, both 

dated March 12, 2007, are acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding 

requirements 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.’’ 

Note 2: Embraer Alert Service Bulletins 

170–52–A036 and 190–52–A018 refer to 

Embraer Service Bulletins 170–50–0006 and 

190–50–0006, respectively, as additional 

sources of service information for the rework 

and roller fitting cover plate removal. 

Embraer Service Bulletins 170–50–0006 and 

190–50–0006 are currently at Revision 01, 

dated March 13, 2007. 

Repetitive Inspections for Damage 

(i) For Model ERJ 170–100 LR, –100 STD, 

–100 SE, –100 SU, –200 LR, –200 STD, and 

–200 SU airplanes; and ERJ 190–100 STD, 

–100 LR, and –100 IGW airplanes: Repeat the 

inspection specified in paragraph (h)(3) of 

this AD at intervals not to exceed 150 flight 

cycles until the terminating action specified 

in paragraph (k)(3) of this AD has been 

accomplished. 

Parts Installation 

(j) For Model ERJ 170–100 LR, –100 STD, 

–100 SE, –100 SU, –200 LR, –200 STD, and 

–200 SU airplanes; and ERJ 190–100 STD, 

–100 LR, and –100 IGW airplanes: As of May 

7, 2007, no person may install a roller fitting 

cover plate on the forward and aft cargo door 

frames on any airplane. 

New Requirements of This AD: Actions and 

Compliance 

(k) Unless already done, do the following 

actions. 

(1) For Model ERJ 190–200 LR, –200 STD, 

and –200 IGW airplanes: As of 24 hours after 

the effective date of this AD, before each 

flight after closing the cargo doors, verify that 

the forward and aft cargo doors are closed 

flush with the fuselage skin, and that all 4 

latched and locked indicators at the bottom 

of each door are green. Persons qualified to 

do this verification are mechanics and 

flightcrew members. If it cannot be verified 

that both doors are closed flush with the 

fuselage skin, and that all 4 latched and 

locked indicators at the bottom of each door 

are green, repair before further flight. Repeat 

the verification before every flight until 

accomplishment of the actions required by 

paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. 

(2) For Model ERJ 190–200 LR, –200 STD, 

and –200 IGW airplanes: Within 10 days after 

the effective date of this AD, do the actions 

specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(i), (k)(2)(ii), 

and (k)(2)(iii) of this AD, in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer 

Alert Service Bulletin 190–52–A018, 

Revision 01, dated March 23, 2007. Repeat 

the inspection specified in paragraph 

(k)(2)(iii) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 

150 flight cycles until the terminating action 

specified in paragraph (k)(3) of this AD has 

been accomplished. 

(i) Remove the roller fitting cover plate on 

the forward and aft cargo door frames. 

(ii) Perform a detailed inspection of the 

forward and aft cargo doors to detect signs of 

interference between the lock handle and the 

aft edge liner assembly. Then rework the aft 

edge liner assembly at the applicable time 

specified in paragraph (k)(2)(ii)(A) or 

(k)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD. 

(A) If any sign of interference is detected: 

Rework the assembly before further flight. 

(B) If no sign of interference is detected: 

Rework the assembly within 150 flight cycles 

after the inspection. 

(iii) Perform a detailed inspection for signs 

of damage of the lateral roller fitting on the 

forward and aft cargo door frames at the 

fuselage. If any damage is found, replace the 

lateral roller fitting before further flight with 

a new roller fitting having the same part 

number, in accordance with Embraer Alert 

Service Bulletin 190–52–A018, Revision 01, 

dated March 23, 2007. 

(3) For all airplanes: Within 5,000 flight 

cycles after the effective date of this AD, do 

the actions specified in paragraphs (k)(3)(i) 

and (k)(3)(ii) of this AD on the forward and 

aft cargo doors. Accomplishing the actions in 

this paragraph terminates the repetitive 

inspections required by paragraphs (i) and 

(k)(2) of this AD. 

(i) Relocate the cargo door closed 

indication sensor in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer 

Service Bulletin 170–52–0041, Revision 01, 

dated June 13, 2008; or 190–52–0023, 

Revision 02, dated March 11, 2008; as 

applicable. 

(ii) Modify the cargo door lock handle 

mechanism and replace the forward and aft 

cargo door roller fittings having part number 

(P/N) 170–92569–401 and 170–85452–401 

with new fittings having P/N 170–92569–403 

and 170–85452–403, as applicable. Do the 

modification in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer 

Service Bulletins 170–52–0044, dated 

January 18, 2008; or 190–52–0027, dated 

March 20, 2008; as applicable. 

(4) Actions done before the effective date 

of this AD in accordance with Embraer 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41645 

Service Bulletin 170–52–0041, dated 

September 6, 2007; or 190–52–0023, dated 

September 6, 2007, or Revision 01, dated 

December 6, 2007; as applicable; are 

acceptable for compliance with the 

corresponding requirements of this AD. 

(5) Within 12 months after the effective 

date of this AD or 12 months after 

accomplishing the modification required by 

paragraph (k)(3) of this AD, whichever occurs 

later: Incorporate information into the 

maintenance program to include the 

operational (OPC) and functional (FNC) 

checks of the forward and aft cargo doors; in 

accordance with a method approved by the 

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the 

Ageˆncia Nacional de Aviac ̧a ̃o Civil (or its 

delegated agent). Within 6,000 flight hours 

after doing the actions required by paragraph 

(k)(3) of this AD, do the OPC and FNC checks 

and repeat the checks thereafter at intervals 

not to exceed 6,000 flight hours. 

Note 3: Guidance on the OPC and FNC 

checks specified in paragraph (k)(5) of this 

AD can be found in Table 1 of this AD, as 

applicable. 

TABLE 1—OPC AND FNC GUIDANCE

Manual— Task— Date— 

Embraer 170 Aircraft Maintenance Manual ..................................................................................... 52–31–00–710–801–A/500 July 15, 2008. 

52–31–20–720–801–A/500 July 15, 2008. 

52–32–00–710–801–A/500 July 15, 2008. 

52–32–20–720–801–A/500 July 15, 2008. 

Embraer 190 Aircraft Maintenance Manual ..................................................................................... 52–31–00–710–801–A/500 July 15, 2008. 

52–31–20–720–801–A/500 July 15, 2008. 

52–32–00–710–801–A/500 July 15, 2008. 

52–32–20–720–801–A/500 July 15, 2008. 

Note 4: For the purposes of this AD, a 

functional check (FNC) is: ‘‘A quantitative 

check to determine if one or more functions 

of an item perform within specified limits.’’ 

Note 5: For the purposes of this AD, an 

operational check (OPC) is: ‘‘A task to 

determine if an item is fulfilling its intended 

purpose. Since it is a failure finding task, it 

does not require quantitative tolerances.’’ 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 6: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: Where 

the MCAI includes a compliance time of 

‘‘after accomplishment of the modification’’ 

for revising the maintenance program for 

Model ERJ–170 airplanes, we have 

determined that a compliance time of 

‘‘within 12 months after the effective date of 

the AD or within 12 months after 

accomplishment of the modification, 

whichever occurs later’’ is appropriate. This 

compliance time is equivalent to the 

compliance time required for Model ERJ–190 

airplanes. The manufacturer and ANAC agree 

with this compliance time. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(l) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, 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, FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98055–4056; 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. AMOCs approved 

previously in accordance with AD 2007–06– 

53, are approved as AMOCs for the 

corresponding provisions of paragraph (i) of 

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 FAA-approved 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, 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

has approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(m) Refer to Brazilian Airworthiness 

Directives 2007–03–01R1, dated June 9, 2008, 

and 2007–03–02R2, dated November 21, 

2008; and the service information contained 

in Table 2 of this AD for related information. 

TABLE 2—SERVICE INFORMATION

Service Bulletin Revision Date 

Embraer Alert Service Bulletin 170–52–A036 ............................................................................................... 01 March 23, 2007. 

Embraer Alert Service Bulletin 190–52–A018 ............................................................................................... 01 March 23, 2007. 

Embraer Service Bulletin 170–52–0041 ........................................................................................................ 01 June 13, 2008. 

Embraer Service Bulletin 170–52–0044 ........................................................................................................ Original January 18, 2008. 

Embraer Service Bulletin 190–52–0023 ........................................................................................................ 02 March 11, 2008. 

Embraer Service Bulletin 190–52–0027 ........................................................................................................ Original March 20, 2008. 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
41646 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

7, 2009. 

Stephen P. Boyd, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–19655 Filed 8–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 168 

[Docket No. USCG–2006–23556, Formerly 

CGD91–202a] 

RIN 1625–AA10, Formerly RIN 2115–AE56 

Escort Vessels in Certain U.S. Waters 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

withdrawing its proposed rule 

concerning the extension of escort 

vessel requirements in place for single 

hulled oil tankers in Prince William 

Sound, Alaska, and Puget Sound, 

Washington, to other U.S. waters and to 

other types of vessels. The Coast Guard 

has concluded that a rulemaking of 

national scope, such as this, is neither 

necessary nor advisable given the 

existence of more locally oriented 

options for considering escort vessel 

requirements. 

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn 

on August 18, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

withdrawn rulemaking is available for 

inspection or copying at the Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. You may also 

find this docket on the Internet by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, selecting 

the Advanced Docket Search option on 

the right side of the screen, inserting 

USCG–2006–23556 in the Docket ID 

box, pressing Enter, and then clicking 

on the item in the Docket ID column. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this notice, 

call Lieutenant Bryson Spangler at (202) 

372–1357. If you have questions on 

viewing material in the docket, call Ms. 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Coast Guard has broad authority 

under the Ports and Waterways Safety 

Act (PWSA, 33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.) to 

control vessel traffic in navigable waters 

of the United States. In addition, section 

4116(c) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

(OPA 90, Pub. L. 101–380) required the 

Coast Guard to initiate a rulemaking ‘‘to 

define those areas [including Prince 

William Sound, Alaska and Puget 

Sound, Washington] on which single 

hulled tankers over 5,000 gross tons 

transporting oil in bulk shall be escorted 

by at least two towing vessels * * * or 

other vessels considered appropriate by 

the Secretary.’’ The present rulemaking 

was opened in response to the OPA 90 

§ 4116(c) requirement and also in order 

to consider escort vessel requirements 

under PWSA. 

This rulemaking was split off from 

another rulemaking in 1993; for the 

history of the parent rulemaking see its 

final rule (70 FR 55728, Sep. 23, 2005). 

For this rulemaking, we previously 

published an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM; 58 FR 

25766, Apr. 27, 1993), a notice of 

meeting and request for comments (59 

FR 65741, Dec. 21, 1994), and a notice 

of withdrawal and request for comments 

(73 FR 20232, Apr. 15, 2008). Further 

background information appears in the 

April 2008 notice. 

The April 2008 notice proposed the 

withdrawal of this rulemaking, based on 

our tentative conclusion that 

nationwide Coast Guard action to 

extend statutory escort vessel 

requirements is not advisable, and that 

escort vessel requirements for waters 

other than Puget and Prince William 

Sounds, or for vessels other than single 

hulled oil tankers, should be imposed 

only after local level Coast Guard 

consideration of specific local needs, 

conditions, and available alternatives. 

We asked for public comment on the 

proposed withdrawal. 

Discussion of Comments 

In response to our April 2008 notice, 

we received 17 letters containing 55 

comments. We thank those who 

commented for their interest. 

Twelve comments concerned the need 

for specific action in Cook Inlet, Alaska, 

or other local waters. We acknowledge 

these comments, but restate our position 

that the need for escort vessels or other 

protective measures in specific waters 

should be assessed under PWSA. 

Therefore, requests for protective 

measures in specific waters should be 

addressed to the local Coast Guard 

sector commander. A list of Coast Guard 

sectors appears, as part of a 

comprehensive list of Coast Guard units, 

at http://www.uscg.mil/top/units/. 

Five comments asserted that we have 

not satisfied our obligations under 

§ 4116(c) of OPA 90, or that withdrawal 

of the rulemaking at this stage would 

violate OPA 90. We do not agree that 

further action is required under OPA 90 

or that withdrawal of this rulemaking 

would violate that act. In 2000, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit stated that 

‘‘it is not at all obvious whether 

§ 4116(c) actually forces the Coast Guard 

itself to come up with the names of, and 

instigate rulemaking regarding possible 

‘other waters,’’’ and held that that 

section ‘‘does not create a sufficiently 

clear duty regarding ‘other waters’ to 

merit mandamus relief.’’ In re Bluewater 

Network, 234 F.3d 1305 at 1306 (DC Cir. 

2000). Nevertheless, the Coast Guard 

sought to comply with any possible 

requirement for regulatory action under 

§ 4116(c) by initiating this rulemaking. 

After considering public comment on 

our 1993 ANPRM, we concluded in 

1994 that ‘‘there is no need to prescribe 

an absolute minimum of two escort 

vessels’’ in other waters, and that 

‘‘designating any other U.S. waters for 

escorting requirements will be 

accomplished using the Coast Guard’s 

authority under * * * PWSA, which 

allows greater flexibility concerning the 

ships to be escorted and the number of 

escort vessels to be required.’’ 59 FR at 

65743. The Coast Guard stands by its 

conclusion that § 4116(c) of OPA 90 

requires no further consideration under 

this rulemaking. 

Nine comments criticized our 

proposed reliance on local assessments 

under PWSA. These comments pointed 

to alleged flaws in the local assessment 

process or argued for national standards 

and timelines to guide local 

assessments, and most stated that PWSA 

is not an adequate substitute for 

continuing this rulemaking under OPA 

90. Later in this document, we discuss 

the Coast Guard PWSA assessment 

process and provide links to additional 

information. The PWSA assessment 

process provides a uniform 

methodology that can be applied across 

the nation, and we are always open to 

considering specific ideas for improving 

it. 

To address two specific concerns that 

critics of the PWSA process raised: 

First, the process generally allows for 

more public input than some 

commenters realize. It provides a 

structured way to make sure all 

significant local stakeholders are 

represented and participate. Assessment 

workshops are locally publicized, open 

to the public, and allow for public 


cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS