16744 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

specified in Section 1 of Document 

95A.1932/05. 

(i) The effective date of this AD. 

(ii) The date of issuance of the original 

French standard airworthiness certificate or 

the date of issuance of the original French 

export certificate of airworthiness. 

(2) Within 12 months after the effective 

date of this AD, revise the ALS of the 

Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to 

incorporate Airbus A330 ALS Part 5—Fuel 

Airworthiness Limitations, dated April 11, 

2006, as defined in Airbus A330 Fuel 

Airworthiness Limitations, Document 

95A.1932/05, Issue 2, dated October 26, 2006 

(approved by the EASA on November 17, 

2006), Section 2, ‘‘Critical Design 

Configuration Control Limitations.’’

Revise ALS for Model A340 Airplanes 

(g) For Model A340–211, A340–212, A340–

213, A340–311, A340–312, A340–313, A340–

541, A340–642, and A340–643 airplanes: Do 

the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and 

(g)(2) of this AD. 

(1) Within 3 months after the effective date 

of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions 

for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate 

Airbus A340 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness 

Limitations, dated April 11, 2006, as defined 

in Airbus A340 Fuel Airworthiness 

Limitations, Document 95A.1933/05, Issue 1, 

dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the 

EASA on April 28, 2006), Section 1, 

‘‘Maintenance/Inspection Tasks.’’ For the 

task identified in Section 1 of Document 

95A.1933/05, the initial compliance time 

starts from the effective date of this AD, and 

the repetitive inspection must be 

accomplished thereafter at the interval 

specified in Section 1 of Document 

95A.1933/05. 

(2) Within 12 months after the effective 

date of this AD, revise the ALS of the 

Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to 

incorporate Airbus A340 ALS Part 5—Fuel 

Airworthiness Limitations, dated April 11, 

2006, as defined in Airbus A340 Fuel 

Airworthiness Limitations, Document 

95A.1933/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 

2005 (approved by the EASA on April 28, 

2006), Section 2, ‘‘Critical Design 

Configuration Control Limitations.’’

No Alternative Inspections, Inspection 

Intervals, or CDCCLs 

(h) Except as provided by paragraph (i) of 

this AD: After accomplishing the actions 

specified in paragraph (f) or (g) of this AD, 

as applicable, no alternative inspections, 

inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested in accordance with 

the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

Related Information 

(j) EASA airworthiness directive 2006–

0205, dated July 11, 2006; and EASA 

airworthiness directive 2007–0023, dated 

January 25, 2007; also address the subject of 

this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 

27, 2007. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–6231 Filed 4–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27777; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–265–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Model DC–8–53, DC–8–55, 

DC–8F–54, and DC–8F–55 Airplanes; 

and Model DC–8–60, DC–8–60F, DC–8–

70, and DC–8–70F Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain McDonnell Douglas airplanes, 

identified above. This proposed AD 

would require a one-time inspection to 

determine the configuration of the 

airplane (tee or angle doubler installed 

on the left and right side of the flat aft 

pressure bulkhead from Longeron 9 to 

Longeron 13). This proposed AD would 

also require repetitive inspections for 

cracking of the tee or angle doubler, and 

corrective actions if necessary. This 

proposed AD results from a report 

indicating that numerous operators have 

found cracks on the tee. We are 

proposing this AD to detect and correct 

stress corrosion cracking of the tee or 

angle doubler installed on the flat aft 

pressure bulkhead. Cracking in this area 

could continue to progress and damage 

the adjacent structure, which could 

result in loss of structural integrity of 

the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by May 21, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

Contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, 

California 90846, Attention: Data and 

Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A 

(D800–0024), for the service information 

identified in this proposed AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon 

Mowery, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles 

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, 

California 90712–4137; telephone (562) 

627–5322; fax (562) 627–5210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. Include the docket 

number ‘‘FAA–2007–27777; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–265–AD’’ at the 

beginning of your comments. We 

specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed AD. We will consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and may amend the proposed AD in 

light of those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed AD. 

Using the search function of that web 

site, anyone can find and read the 

comments in any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

who sent the comment (or signed the 

comment on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16745 

19477–78), or you may visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in 

person at the Docket Management 

Facility office between 9:00 a.m. and 

5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The Docket 

Management Facility office (telephone 

(800) 647–5227) is located on the plaza 

level of the Nassif Building at the DOT 

street address stated in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after the Docket 

Management System receives them. 

Discussion 

We have received a report indicating 

that numerous operators have found 

cracks on the flat aft pressure bulkhead 

tee. The tee is installed on the left and 

right side of McDonnell Douglas Model 

DC–8 airplanes that have a flat aft 

pressure bulkhead. The cracks, which 

originate in the corner radius of the tee 

from Longeron 9 to Longeron 13, are a 

result of stress corrosion. This 

condition, if not corrected, could result 

in cracks continuing to progress, and 

consequent damage the adjacent 

structure and loss of structural integrity 

of the airplane. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin DC8–53A081, dated 

November 14, 2006. The service bulletin 

describes procedures for doing an initial 

inspection using one of the following 

methods as applicable: 

• For airplanes not previously 

repaired (Configuration 1), the service 

bulletin specifies doing the initial 

inspection for cracking of the tee 

installed on the left and right side of the 

flat aft pressure bulkhead from 

Longeron 9 to Longeron 13, according to 

one of three inspection methods 

specified in the DC–8 Supplemental 

Inspection Document (SID) L26–011, 

Volume II, 53–10–18: Methods 01A 

(High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC)) 

and 01B (Ultrasonic) together; or 

Method 02 (HFEC); or Method 03 

(Visual Aided). 

• For airplanes previously repaired 

with an angle doubler that was installed 

in accordance with DC–8 Structural 

Repair Manual 53–2–5, Figure 9 

(Configuration 2), the service bulletin 

specifies an initial HFEC inspection for 

cracking of the angle doubler. 

• For airplanes previously repaired 

with any repair other than one installed 

in accordance with DC–8 Structural 

Repair Manual 53–2–5, Figure 9 

(Configuration 3), the service bulletin 

specifies contacting Boeing for 

instructions. 

The service bulletin specifies the 

following actions, depending on crack 

findings: 

• If no crack is found, the service 

bulletin specifies repeating the 

applicable inspection. For Configuration 

1 airplanes, the repetitive intervals 

depend on the inspection type chosen, 

and range from within 2 years after the 

previous SID inspection or 600 flight 

cycles, whichever occurs earlier; to 

within 8 years after the previous SID 

inspection or 17,400 flight cycles, 

whichever occurs earlier. For 

Configuration 2 airplanes, the repetitive 

interval is 4,500 flight cycles. 

• If any crack is found, the service 

bulletin specifies the corrective action 

of repairing the crack before further 

flight. The repair involves installing an 

angle doubler (if not previously 

installed) or removing the cracked angle 

doubler and installing a new one (if 

previously installed). The service 

bulletin states that the repetitive 

interval after repair is 4,500 flight 

cycles, and only the HFEC inspection 

type is specified for the repetitive 

inspections. 

The service bulletin also specifies 

that, for Configuration 1 airplanes, if 

maintenance records show that the flat 

aft pressure bulkhead tee was 

previously inspected using one of the 

three inspection methods specified in 

the DC–8 SID L26–011, Volume II, 53–

10–18, and no crack was found, the 

inspections may be continued at the 

applicable repetitive interval specified 

for Configuration 1 airplanes on which 

no crack is found during the initial 

inspection. 

Accomplishing the actions specified 

in the service information is intended to 

adequately address the unsafe 

condition. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

We have evaluated all pertinent 

information and identified an unsafe 

condition that is likely to exist or 

develop on other airplanes of this same 

type design. For this reason, we are 

proposing this AD, which would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information described 

previously, except as discussed under 

‘‘Difference between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Bulletin.’’ This 

proposed AD also would require 

determining the configuration of the 

airplane. 

Difference Between the Proposed AD 

and the Service Bulletin 

The service bulletin specifies to 

contact the manufacturer for 

instructions on how to repair certain 

conditions, but this proposed AD would 

require repairing those conditions in 

one of the following ways: 

• Using a method that we approve; or 

• Using data that meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and 

that have been approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes 

Delegation Option Authorization 

Organization whom we have authorized 

to make those findings. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 321 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

This proposed AD would affect about 

139 airplanes of U.S. registry. The 

following table provides the estimated 

costs for U.S. operators to comply with 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $80 per work hour. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work hours Cost per airplane Fleet cost 

Inspection to determine the configuration of the airplane, and to determine previous inspection 

method.

1 $80 $11,120. 

Configuration 1, per inspection cycle ............................................................................................. 11 $880, per 

inspection 

cycle 

Up to 

$122,320, 

per inspection cycle. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
16746 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

ESTIMATED COSTS—Continued 

Action Work hours Cost per airplane Fleet cost 

Configuration 2, per inspection cycle ............................................................................................. 5 $400, per 

inspection 

cycle 

Up to 

$55,600, 

per inspection cycle. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

Section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this 

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 that the 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. See the ADDRESSES section 

for a location to examine the regulatory 

evaluation. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, 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 Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA–2007–

27777; Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–

265–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by May 21, 2007. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas 

Model DC–8–53, DC–8–55, DC–8–61, DC–8–

61F, DC–8–62, DC–8–62F, DC–8–63, DC–8–

63F, DC–8–71, DC–8–71F, DC–8–72, DC–8–

72F, DC–8–73, DC–8–73F, DC–8F–54, and 

DC–8F–55 airplanes, certificated in any 

category; as identified in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin DC8–53A081, dated 

November 14, 2006. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from a report indicating 

that numerous operators have found cracks 

on the tee installed on the left and right side 

of the flat aft pressure bulkhead from 

Longeron 9 to Longeron 13. We are issuing 

this AD to detect and correct stress corrosion 

cracking of the tee or angle doubler installed 

on the flat aft pressure bulkhead. Cracking in 

this area could continue to progress and 

damage the adjacent structure, which could 

result in loss of structural integrity of the 

airplane. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Inspections and Related Investigative/ 

Corrective Actions 

(f) For all airplanes: Within 24 months after 

the effective date of this AD, inspect the left 

and right side of the flat aft pressure 

bulkhead from Longeron 9 to Longeron 13 to 

determine whether a tee is installed (also 

called Configuration 1 airplanes) or an angle 

is installed; and if any angle was installed in 

accordance with the DC–8 Structural Repair 

Manual 52–2–5, Figure 9 (also called 

Configuration 2 airplanes), or in accordance 

with any other repair method (also called 

Configuration 3 airplanes). A review of 

airplane maintenance records is acceptable in 

lieu of this inspection if the applicable 

installation can be conclusively determined 

from that review. 

(1) For airplanes determined to be either 

Configuration 1 or Configuration 2: Within 24 

months after the effective date of this AD, do 

the applicable inspection for cracking of the 

tee or angle doubler, and do all applicable 

corrective actions before further flight, by 

accomplishing all the actions specified in the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin DC8–53A081, dated 

November 14, 2006. Repeat the applicable 

inspection thereafter at the applicable 

interval specified in Paragraph 1.E, 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin DC8–53A081, dated November 14, 

2006. 

(2) For airplanes determined to be 

Configuration 1 airplanes: A review of the 

airplane maintenance records to determine if 

the tee was previously inspected using one 

of the three inspection methods specified in 

the DC–8 Supplemental Inspection 

Document (SID) L26–011, Volume II, 53–10–

18; and to determine that no crack was 

found; is acceptable to determine the type of 

inspection and corresponding repetitive 

interval if the inspection type and crack 

finding can be conclusively determined from 

that review. 

(3) For airplanes determined to be 

Configuration 3 airplanes: Within 24 months 

after the effective date of this AD, repair the 

previous installation. Where Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin DC8–53A081, dated 

November 14, 2006, specifies to contact 

Boeing for instructions, repair using a 

method approved in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraph (g) of this 

AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(g)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested in accordance with the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16747 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies, notify the 

appropriate principal inspector in the FAA 

Flight Standards Certificate Holding District 

Office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option 

Authorization Organization who has been 

authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane and 14 

CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 

29, 2007. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–6338 Filed 4–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27753; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–022–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa 

Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. 

(EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 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: 

It has been found that the fuel quantity 

probes harnesses installed in the left and 

right wing stub tanks on some Embraer ERJ–

170( ) aircraft models may not be protected 

in accordance with RBHA/FAR (Regulamento 

Brasileiro de Homologac ̧a ̃o Aerona ́utica/ 

Federal Aviation Regulation) 25.981(a) and 

(b) requirements. 

The unsafe condition is potential 

ignition sources inside fuel tanks, 

which, in combination with flammable 

fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank 

explosions and consequent loss 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 May 7, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• DOT Docket Web Site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://dms.dot.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 

proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, 

any comments received, and other 

information. The street address for the 

Docket Office (telephone (800) 647–

5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1175; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Streamlined Issuance of AD 

The FAA is implementing a new 

process for streamlining the issuance of 

ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined 

process will allow us to adopt MCAI 

safety requirements in a more efficient 

manner and will reduce safety risks to 

the public. This process continues to 

follow all FAA AD issuance processes to 

meet legal, economic, Administrative 

Procedure Act, and Federal Register 

requirements. We also continue to meet 

our technical decision-making 

responsibilities to identify and correct 

unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated 

products. 

This proposed AD references the 

MCAI and related service information 

that we considered in forming the 

engineering basis to correct the unsafe 

condition. The proposed AD contains 

text copied from the MCAI and for this 

reason might not follow our plain 

language principles. 

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–2007–27753; Directorate Identifier 

2007–NM–022–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:// 

dms.dot.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 2007–01–02, 

effective January 15, 2007 (referred to 

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

unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

It has been found that the fuel quantity 

probes harnesses installed in the left and 

right wing stub tanks on some Embraer ERJ–

170( ) aircraft models may not be protected 

in accordance with RBHA/FAR (Regulamento 

Brasileiro de Homologac ̧a ̃o Aerona ́utica/ 

Federal Aviation Regulation) 25.981(a) and 

(b) requirements. 

The unsafe condition is potential 

ignition sources inside fuel tanks, 

which, in combination with flammable 

fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank 

explosions and consequent loss of the 

airplane. The MCAI requires inspection 

of the fuel quantity probes harnesses 

and correct reassembly if necessary. You 

may obtain further information by 

examining the MCAI in the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 

170–28–0011, dated April 26, 2006. 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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS