47190 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 150 / Thursday, August 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

11787; telephone 631–231–3737; e-mail 

csoengineering@parker.com; Internet: http:// 

www.parker.com. 

(4) You may review copies of the 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. 

(5) You may also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go 

to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington on July 16, 

2010. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18293 Filed 8–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0716; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–NM–212–AD; Amendment 

39–16378; AD 2010–16–02] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa 

Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. 

(EMBRAER) Model EMB–135 

Airplanes; and Empresa Brasileira de 

Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model 

EMB–145, –145ER, –145MR, –145LR, 

–145XR, –145MP, and –145EP 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This 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 

corrosion on the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) 

mounting rods that could cause the APU rod 

to break, affecting the APU support structure 

integrity. 

APU support structure failure could 

result in loss of power of the APU and 

possible loss of control of the airplane. 

We are issuing this AD to require 

actions to correct the unsafe condition 

on these products. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

September 9, 2010. The Director of the 

Federal Register approved the 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in this AD as of 

September 9, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in person at the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–1175; fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. That 

NPRM was published in the Federal 

Register on August 19, 2009 (74 FR 

41807). That NPRM proposed to correct 

an unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

It has been found the occurrence of 

corrosion on the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) 

mounting rods that could cause the APU rod 

to break, affecting the APU support structure 

integrity. 

APU support structure failure could 

result in loss of power of the APU and 

possible loss of control of the airplane. 

The required action is doing an external 

detailed inspection for corrosion of the 

APU auxiliary and center mounting rods 

and rod ends, and corrective actions if 

necessary. Corrective actions include 

removing corrosion, applying 

anticorrosive treatment, and replacing 

mounting rods. You may obtain further 

information by examining the MCAI in 

the AD docket. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

considered the comments received. 

Request for Bridging Requirements for 

Previously Accomplished Actions 

American Eagle Airlines (AEA) 

requests that we revise the NPRM to 

include ‘‘bridging requirements.’’ AEA 

states that it agrees with the repetitive 

inspections in the NPRM; however, 

AEA asserts that there are no bridging 

requirements to reach the repetitive 

inspections for airplanes that have 

already accomplished EMBRAER 

Service Bulletin 145–49–0034, Revision 

01, dated September 8, 2008. AEA states 

that bridging requirements are necessary 

for initializing a repetitive inspection 

with the initial compliance time of 500 

flight hours or 2 months after the 

effective date of this AD. 

We agree with AEA that bridging 

requirements would be necessary given 

the proposed compliance times. 

However, since the NPRM was issued, 

we have received sufficient technical 

information to support an extension of 

the proposed compliance time. We have 

determined that changing the initial 

compliance time from 500 flight hours 

or 2 months after the effective date of 

this AD to 1,500 flight hours or 180 days 

after the effective date of this AD, will 

provide an acceptable level of safety. 

The new compliance time correlates 

with Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 

2008–10–02, effective October 21, 2008. 

With the extended compliance times, 

there should not be a need for bridging 

requirements. If however, AEA believes 

that such requirements are still 

necessary, it may apply for an 

alternative method of compliance 

(AMOC) in accordance with the 

provisions specified in paragraph (g)(1) 

of this AD. 

Request To Revise the Unsafe Condition 

Specified in Paragraph (e) of the NPRM 

EMBRAER states that the 

undetectable fire condition described in 

the NPRM is not verifiable since two 

events must happen for APU rod 

breakage to occur. 

EMBRAER states that the first event is 

a fire, because the rod breakage by itself 

is not enough to promote sparks or 

overheating of any kind. EMBRAER also 

states that the rod breakage has not been 

shown to cause leakage of APU oil in 

the gearbox, or leakage of the fuel lines 

in the compartment. EMBRAER states 

both ignition sources and flammable 

fluids would be required to ignite a fire. 

EMBRAER states that for the second 

event to occur, a fire must start due to 

the unforeseeable scenario described 

previously, at which time damage to the 

fire detector, located in the vicinity of 

the combustion chamber and accessory 

gearbox, could occur. EMBRAER states 

that in-service experience demonstrates 

that the fire detector must be punctured 

or extensively crushed for it to lose its 

capability to detect a fire. Even if that 

happens, EMBRAER states that the 

integrity monitoring circuitry of the fire 

detector is capable of warning the 

flightcrew if the detector becomes 

inoperative. EMBRAER also states that 

in the event of fire detection failure, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 150 / Thursday, August 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 47191 

annunciated on the engine indication 

crew alert system associated with the 

APU event, the flight crew is required 

to carry out instructions in the airplane 

flight manual section ‘‘Abnormal 

Procedures’’ to shut down the APU and 

discharge the fire extinguishing agent to 

put out the fire. 

From these statements we infer that 

EMBRAER requests that we revise 

paragraph (e) of the NPRM to clarify the 

unsafe condition. We agree with the 

scenarios EMBRAER has described 

previously in regards to an undetected 

fire occurring in the tail cone of the 

airplane. Therefore, we have changed 

the Summary section and paragraph (e) 

of this AD to state, ‘‘APU support 

structure failure could result in loss of 

power of the APU and possible loss of 

control of the airplane.’’ 

Request To Extend the Proposed Initial 

Compliance Time 

EMBRAER states that the European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the 

Ageˆncia Nacional de Aviac ̧a ̃o Civil 

(ANAC) fleets have accomplished the 

respective ADs. This resulted in an 

approximately 2.5 percent removal rate 

of the rods, including many unnecessary 

removals that had no moderate or heavy 

corrosion at the rod, but mostly 

corrosion on the rod terminal. 

EMBRAER states that, in total, only 

eight rods were conclusively removed 

due to the meaning of this inspection 

out of more than 2,200 rods inspected, 

leading to a rate of 0.35 percentage 

findings. EMBRAER also states that 

there were instances of more than one 

rod removed from the same airplane, 

conclusively demonstrating that the 

removal criterion was over-estimated. 

EMBRAER states that one heavily 

corroded rod was found on one 

airplane, and further corrosion could 

not be found on any other similarly 

installed rods. 

EMBRAER states that with the 

considerations stated previously, 

meaning lack of real fire in the 

compartment, and lack of evidence or 

reports of corrosion spreading in the 

current Model EMB 145 fleet, the initial 

compliance time of 500 flight hours or 

2 months after the effective date of the 

AD is too conservative of an approach. 

EMBRAER states that this leads to 

extensive burden and labor costs on 

operators, and does not lead to a real 

increased margin of safety levels related 

to this issue. EMBRAER states that, 

according to Brazilian Airworthiness 

Directive 2008–10–02, effective October 

21, 2008; and EMBRAER Service 

Bulletin 145–49–0034, Revision 01, 

dated September 8, 2008; an adequate 

approach could be taken within 1,500 

flight hours or 6 months from the 

effective date of the AD, whichever 

occurs first. EMBRAER states that the 

same is true for the Legacy fleet in 

regards to EMBRAER Service Bulletin 

145LEG–49–0008, Revision 02, dated 

September 8, 2008. 

We infer that EMBRAER requests that 

we extend the proposed compliance 

time specified in the NPRM. We agree 

that the proposed compliance times are 

conservative. As we explained 

previously, since the NPRM has been 

published, we have determined that the 

compliance times proposed in the 

NPRM are no longer necessary as the 

inspection reports received provided 

sufficient technical information to 

extend the compliance time. We are 

changing the initial compliance time 

from 500 flight hours or 2 months after 

the effective date of this AD to 1,500 

flight hours or 180 days after the 

effective date of this AD. The new 

compliance time correlates with 

Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2008– 

10–02, effective October 21, 2008. No 

additional changes to the AD are 

necessary in this regard. 

Request To Eliminate Repetitive 

Detailed Inspections in the AD 

EMBRAER states that the repetitive 

inspection interval currently required 

by the maintenance review board (MRB) 

report for C–Check (5,000 flight cycles) 

states: 

Zonal Inspection Task 53–Z313–214–001– 

A00 Internal General Visual Inspection of the 

Tail Cone Fairing at C–Check (5,000 FH). 

Examine the fuselage zone for loose rivets, 

nicks, cracks, dents, erosion, corrosion, 

deteriorated protective treatment, foreign 

objects, and deformation. 

EMBRAER states that inspections 

accomplished in accordance with 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–49– 

0034, Revision 01, dated September 8, 

2008; and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 

145LEG–49–0008, Revision 02, dated 

September 8, 2008; revealed rods with 

moderate to heavy corrosion on 

airplanes between 9,482 total flight 

hours and 21,506 total flight hours. 

EMBRAER states that these findings 

demonstrate that the inspection interval 

in the MRB is adequate to fully address 

the issue, or any other operational 

mishap that might occur at APU 

removal/installation. EMBRAER also 

states that a few APU rods are 

reportedly replaced over time, apart 

from this AD, demonstrating the MRB 

task is effective for the repetitive 

inspections. EMBRAER states that the 

repetitive detailed inspection in the 

NPRM is more restrictive than the 

general visual inspection specified in 

the MRB. 

From these statements, we infer that 

EMBRAER requests that we eliminate 

the repetitive detailed inspections 

specified in the NPRM. We agree with 

EMBRAER that the repetitive detailed 

inspection proposed in the NPRM is 

more conservative than the inspection 

in the MRB. Since the NPRM was 

published, we have determined that the 

repetitive inspections proposed in the 

NPRM are no longer necessary as the 

inspection reports received provided 

sufficient technical information to 

remove the proposed requirement. The 

proposed repetitive inspections have 

been removed from this AD. 

Request To Extend the Compliance 

Time for the Reporting Requirement 

EMBRAER states that the EASA and 

ANAC ADs were issued in advance of 

this proposed NPRM. EMBRAER also 

states that the current status of U.S. 

operators that have proactively started 

inspecting their fleets is 55 percent of 

the total fleet, meaning nearly 380 

airplanes have already been inspected. 

EMBRAER states that since the 

proposed compliance time for the initial 

inspection specified in the NPRM is 500 

flight hours, with the current average of 

120 flight hours per month fleet usage, 

it would take more than 4 months to 

complete the first inspection. EMBRAER 

states that, since the results remain 

unchanged with time, it is 

recommended that the 30-day reporting 

requirement be extended to 120 days 

minimum, reducing unnecessary labor 

burden and processing for the operators. 

From these statements, we infer that 

EMBRAER requests that we extend the 

compliance time for submitting the 

inspection results from 30 days to 120 

days. We disagree with extending the 

compliance time for submitting the 

inspection results. We also disagree that 

the report is an undue burden to the 

operator. A reporting requirement is 

instrumental in ensuring that we can 

gather as much information as possible 

regarding the extent and nature of the 

problem, especially when findings of 

corrosion are involved and in cases 

where that data might not be available 

through other established means. This 

information is necessary to ensure that 

proper corrective action will be taken. 

We have not changed this AD regarding 

this issue. 

Request To Change Proposed 

Compliance Time Frame 

Trans States Airlines requests a 

change in the proposed compliance time 

for the initial inspection from 2 months 

to 60 days after the effective date of the 

AD. Trans States Airlines states that 60 

days is an exact period where 2 months 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
47192 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 150 / Thursday, August 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

will vary based on the months involved. 

Trans States Airlines also requests that 

the repetitive requirements read ‘‘1,500 

flight hours, or 180 days after the 

effective date of this AD,’’ instead of 

‘‘1,500 flight hours, or 6 months after the 

date of this AD,’’ for the same reason. 

We agree with Trans States Airlines’ 

request to use number of days instead of 

months. Trans States Airlines is correct 

in stating that days are more definitive 

time than months. We also have 

determined that changing the initial 

compliance time from 500 flight hours 

or 2 months after the effective date of 

this AD to 1,500 flight hours or 180 days 

after the effective date of this AD, will 

provide an acceptable level of safety. 

We have changed the final rule 

regarding this issue. 

In regards to using days versus 

months for the repetitive inspections, as 

we stated previously, we have 

determined that the repetitive 

inspections proposed in the NPRM are 

no longer necessary and have been 

removed from this AD. No further 

change to this AD is necessary in this 

regard. 

Request To Allow Additional Part 

Numbers 

Trans States Airlines requests that we 

revise the NPRM to allow mounting 

rods with part number –001 or –005 as 

an acceptable method of compliance for 

replacement of the rod as allowed in the 

EMBRAER EMB–135/–145 Illustrated 

Parts Catalog. 

We disagree with Trans State Airlines’ 

request to use part number –001 or –005 

as an acceptable method of compliance 

for replacing the mounting rods. The 

illustrated parts catalog is not regulated 

by the FAA, and EMBRAER did not 

provide us with information to ensure 

that these parts adequately address the 

unsafe condition. However, operators 

may apply to use an AMOC for this AD, 

as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this 

AD. Because of the unsafe condition 

that exists, Brazilian Airworthiness 

Directive 2008–10–02, effective October 

21, 2008; EMBRAER Service Bulletin 

145–49–0034, Revision 01, dated 

September 8, 2008; and EMBRAER 

Service Bulletin 145LEG–49–0008, 

Revision 02, dated September 8, 2008; 

specify that if moderate corrosion is 

found, the affected mounting rod is to 

be replaced with a new mounting rod 

having the same part number. We have 

not changed this AD regarding this 

issue. 

Request for Removal of Reporting 

Requirement 

Trans States Airlines states that the 

reporting requirement is an undue 

burden on the operator. Trans States 

Airlines states that, of the 50 mounting 

rods removed for corrosion, only two 

were found to have actually had 

corrosion. Trans States Airlines states 

that more than 2,000 rods have already 

been inspected, and it believes 

sufficient data already exist to 

determine the need for further 

rulemaking. 

From these statements, we infer that 

Trans States Airlines is asking that we 

remove the proposed reporting 

requirement from the NPRM. We have 

obtained further information from 

EMBRAER regarding the reporting 

requirement. EMBRAER states that the 

report is necessary so that more 

comprehensive data can be aquired. We 

disagree with Trans States Airlines in 

removing the reporting requirement and 

that the report is an undue burden to the 

operator. A reporting requirement is 

instrumental in ensuring that we can 

gather as much information as possible 

regarding the extent and nature of the 

problem, especially in cases where that 

data might not be available through 

other established means. This 

information is necessary to ensure that 

proper corrective action will be taken. 

We have not changed this AD regarding 

this issue. 

Clarification of the Retention 

Requirements for the Reporting 

Requirement 

Trans States Airlines requests 

clarification for the retention 

requirements for the proposed reporting 

requirement specified in the NPRM. 

We agree to clarify the retention 

requirements for the reporting 

requirement specified in paragraph 

(g)(3) of this AD. We have obtained 

further information from Trans States 

Airlines. Trans States Airlines questions 

how long it must prove that it has 

complied with the reporting 

requirement in the AD, since the report 

is not considered part of the 

maintenance records. 

Only one report is required by this 

AD. Once the report has been submitted, 

no further action is required by this AD. 

We have not changed this AD regarding 

this issue. 

Request To Add an E-Mail Address to 

the Reporting Address 

Trans States Airlines states that 

including EMBRAER’s mailing address 

and telephone number in paragraph 

(f)(3) of the NPRM, makes those the only 

approved methods for reporting, and 

that e-mail would not be an acceptable 

method for reporting inspection 

findings. 

From this statement, we infer that 

Trans States Airlines requests that for 

the reporting requirement in paragraph 

(f)(3) of the NPRM, we include an e-mail 

address in the contact information. 

We agree with Trans States Airlines’ 

request to include an e-mail address in 

the contact information. We have 

determined that an e-mail is an 

acceptable method of compliance for 

reporting inspection findings to 

EMBRAER. EMBRAER has provided us 

with an e-mail address and we have 

added that address to paragraph (f)(3) of 

this AD. 

Request To Exclude Light Corrosion 

From the Reporting Requirement 

Expressjet Airlines requests that the 

light corrosion findings be removed 

from the reporting requirement in the 

NPRM. Expressjet Airlines states that 

paragraph (f)(3) of the NPRM states to 

send a report of the positive findings, 

including level of corrosion, such as 

light, moderate, or heavy, to EMBRAER. 

Expressjet Airlines also states that 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–49– 

0034, Revision 01, dated September 8, 

2008, requires only that moderate or 

heavy corrosion be reported. 

We agree with Expressjet Airlines that 

reporting of light corrosion is not 

necessary. Since the NPRM was issued, 

we have received sufficient technical 

information to remove the reporting 

requirement for light corrosion. We have 

revised paragraph (f)(3) of this AD to 

remove light corrosion from the 

reporting requirement of this AD. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the available data, 

including the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously. 

We determined that these changes will 

not increase the economic burden on 

any operator or increase the scope of the 

AD. 

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 required different 

actions in this AD from those in the 

MCAI in order to follow our FAA 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 150 / Thursday, August 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 47193 

policies. Any such differences are 

highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. 

Explanation of Changes to Costs of 

Compliance 

Since issuance of the NPRM, we have 

increased the labor rate used in the 

Costs of Compliance from $80 per workhour to $85 per work-hour. The Costs of 

Compliance information, below, reflects 

this increase in the specified hourly 

labor rate. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD will affect 

761 products of U.S. registry. We also 

estimate that it will take about 8 workhours per product to comply with the 

basic requirements of this AD. The 

average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. 

Based on these figures, we estimate the 

cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to 

be $517,480, or $680 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 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 this AD: 

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 AD and placed it in the AD docket. 

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 the NPRM, 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. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 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: 

2010–16–02 Empresa Brasileira de 

Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER): 

Amendment 39–16378. Docket No. 

FAA–2009–0716; Directorate Identifier 

2008–NM–212–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) 

becomes effective September 9, 2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Empresa Brasileira 

de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model 

EMB–135BJ, –135ER, –135KE, –135KL, and 

–135LR airplanes; and Model EMB–145, 

–145ER, –145MR, –145LR, –145XR, –145MP, 

and –145EP airplanes; certified in any 

category; as identified EMBRAER Service 

Bulletin 145–49–0034, Revision 01, dated 

September 8, 2008; and EMBRAER Service 

Bulletin 145LEG–49–0008, Revision 02, 

dated September 8, 2008. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 49: Airborne Auxiliary Power. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

It has been found the occurrence of 

corrosion on the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) 

mounting rods that could cause the APU rod 

to break, affecting the APU support structure 

integrity. 

APU support structure failure could result in 

loss of power of the APU and possible loss 

of control of the airplane. The required action 

is doing an external detailed inspection for 

corrosion of the APU auxiliary and center 

mounting rods and rod ends, and corrective 

actions if necessary. Corrective actions 

include removing corrosion, applying 

anticorrosive treatment, and replacing 

mounting rods. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done do the following 

actions: 

(1) Within 1,500 flight hours or 180 days 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first, do an external detailed 

inspection for corrosion of the APU, auxiliary 

and center mounting rods, and rod ends. If 

any corrosion is found during any inspection, 

before further flight, do the actions required 

by paragraphs (f)(1)(i), (f)(1)(ii), and (f)(1)(iii) 

of this AD, as applicable. Do all actions 

required by this paragraph in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–49–0034, 

Revision 01, dated September 8, 2008; or 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG–49– 

0008, Revision 02, dated September 8, 2008; 

as applicable. 

(i) If light corrosion (characterized by 

discoloration or pitting) is found on a 

mounting rod, remove the corrosion and 

apply an anticorrosive treatment. 

(ii) If moderate corrosion (characterized by 

surface blistering or evidence of scaling and 

flaking), or heavy corrosion (characterized by 

severe blistering exfoliation, scaling and 

flaking) is found, replace the affected 

mounting rod with a new mounting rod 

having the same part number. 

(iii) If any corrosion is detected on the rod 

ends, remove the corrosion and apply an 

anticorrosive treatment. 

(2) Accomplishing the inspection and 

corrective actions required by paragraph 

(f)(1) of this AD before the effective date of 

this AD in accordance with EMBRAER 

Service Bulletin 145–49–0034, dated April 

18, 2008; EMBRAER Service Bulletin 

145LEG–49–0008, dated April 18, 2008; or 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG–49– 

0008, Revision 01, dated May 26, 2008; is 

acceptable for compliance with the 

corresponding requirements of paragraph 

(f)(1) of this AD. 

(3) For mounting rods with moderate or 

heavy corrosion, submit a report of the 

positive findings (including level of 

corrosion such as Moderate or Heavy; 

guidance is provided in EMBRAER Corrosion 

Prevention Manual (CPM) 51–11–01) on the 

external surface of the rods as well as the rod 

ends) of the inspection required by paragraph 

(f)(1) of this AD to the ATTN: Mr. Antonio 

Claret—Customer Support Group, EMBRAER 

Aircraft Holding, Inc., 276 SW. 34th Street, 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315; telephone 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
47194 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 150 / Thursday, August 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(954) 359–3826; e-mail 

structure@embraer.com.br; at the applicable 

time specified in paragraph (f)(3)(i) or 

(f)(3)(ii) of this AD. The report must include 

the inspection results, a description of any 

discrepancies found, the airplane serial 

number, and the number of landings and 

flight hours on the airplane. 

(i) If the inspection was done on or after 

the effective date of this AD: Submit the 

report within 30 days after the inspection. 

(ii) If the inspection was accomplished 

prior to the effective date of this AD: Submit 

the report within 30 days after the effective 

date of this AD. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: 

(1) Although Brazilian Airworthiness 

Directive 2008–10–02, effective October 21, 

2008, does not include a reporting 

requirement, the service bulletins identified 

in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD do specify 

reporting findings to EMBRAER. This AD 

requires that operators report the results of 

the inspections to EMBRAER because the 

required inspection report will help 

determine the extent of the corrosion in the 

affected fleet, from which we will determine 

if further corrective action is warranted. This 

difference has been coordinated with 

Ageˆncia Nacional de Aviac ̧a ̃o Civil (ANAC). 

(2) Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2008– 

10–02, effective October 21, 2008, allows 

replacement of the affected APU mounting 

rods by ‘‘new ones bearing a new P/N [part 

number] approved by ANAC.’’ However, 

paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this AD requires 

replacing the affected mounting rod only 

with a new mounting rod having the same 

part number. Operators may request approval 

of an alternative method of compliance in 

order to install a new part number in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. This difference 

has been coordinated with ANAC. 

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: Todd Thompson, 

Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 

227–1175; 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 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 

(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. 

(4) Special Flight Permits: 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 airplane can be modified (if the 

operator elects to do so), except if two or 

more center mounting rods or rod ends are 

heavily corroded or broken, a special flight 

permit is not permitted. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness 

Directive 2008–10–02, effective October 21, 

2008; EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–49– 

0034, Revision 01, dated September 8, 2008; 

and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG–49– 

0008, Revision 02, dated September 8, 2008; 

for related information. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(i) You must use EMBRAER Service 

Bulletin 145–49–0034, Revision 01, dated 

September 8, 2008; or EMBRAER Service 

Bulletin 145LEG–49–0008, Revision 02, 

dated September 8, 2008; as applicable; to do 

the actions required by this AD, unless the 

AD specifies otherwise. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

this service information under 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this 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; e-mail: distrib@embraer.com.br; 

Internet: http://www.flyembraer.com. 

(3) You may review copies of the 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. 

(4) You may also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go 

to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 16, 

2010. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18398 Filed 8–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0046; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–086–AD; Amendment 

39–16383; AD 2010–16–06] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 737–300, –400, –500, 

–600, –700, and –800 Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Model 737–300, –400, –500, –600, –700, 

and –800 series airplanes. This AD 

requires inspecting to verify the part 

number of the low-pressure flex-hoses 

of the crew oxygen system installed 

under the oxygen mask stowage boxes 

located within the flight deck, and 

replacing the flex-hose with a new nonconductive low-pressure flex-hose if 

necessary. This AD results from reports 

of low-pressure flex-hoses of the crew 

oxygen system that burned through due 

to inadvertent electrical current from a 

short circuit in the audio select panel. 

We are issuing this AD to prevent 

inadvertent electrical current, which 

can cause the low-pressure flex-hoses of 

the crew oxygen system to melt or burn, 

causing oxygen system leakage and 

smoke or fire. 

DATES: This AD is effective September 9, 

2010. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the AD 

as of September 9, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124– 

2207; telephone 206–544–5000, 

extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; e-mail 

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (telephone 800–647–5527) 

is the Document Management Facility, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1