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

76950

Vol. 65, No. 237

Friday, December 8, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–256–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa

Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.

(EMBRAER) Model EMB–145 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

certain EMBRAER Model EMB–145

series airplanes. This proposal would

require inspection of the bolts on the

hinge fittings that attach the spring tab

and the servo tab to the rear spar of the

elevators for evidence of loosening;

inspection of the region of the hinge

fittings on the spring tab for interference

of the bonding jumpers attached to the

hinge fittings with the leading edge of

the spring tab; and corrective action, if

necessary. The proposal is prompted by

issuance of mandatory continuing

airworthiness information by a foreign

airworthiness authority. The action

specified by the proposed AD is

intended to prevent the spring tab or the

servo tab from becoming disconnected,

resulting in structural failure. The

action is also intended to prevent

damage to the leading edge of the spring

tab, which could result in loss of control

of the elevator.

DATES: Comments must be received by

January 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

256–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. Comments may be

submitted via fax to (425) 227–1232.

Comments may also be sent via the

Internet using the following address: 9-

anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments

sent via fax or the Internet must contain

‘‘Docket No. 2000–NM–256–AD’’ in the

subject line and need not be submitted

in triplicate. Comments sent via the

Internet as attached electronic files must

be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for

Windows or ASCII text.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.

(EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225,

Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown

Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite

450, Atlanta, Georgia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Viswa Padmanabhan, Aerospace

Engineer, ACE–117A, FAA, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown

Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite

450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone

(770) 703–6049; fax (770) 703–6097.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this action may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Submit comments using the following

format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue.

For example, discuss a request to

change the compliance time and a

request to change the service bulletin

reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific

change to the proposed AD is being

requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or

data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this action

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 2000–NM–256–AD.’’

The postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.

2000–NM–256–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Departmento de Aviacao Civil

(DAC), which is the airworthiness

authority for Brazil, notified the FAA

that an unsafe condition may exist on

certain EMBRAER Model EMB–145

series airplanes. The DAC reported an

instance of the loosening of the bolts on

the hinge fittings which attach the

spring tab and the servo tab to the rear

spar of the elevators and indicated that

the resulting loss of attachment rigidity

may lead to undesirable levels of

vibration. The DAC also notified the

FAA that the bonding jumpers held in

position by bolts on the hinge fittings

may interfere with the leading edge of

the spring tab.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent the spring

tab or the servo tab from becoming

disconnected, resulting in structural

failure. The actions are also intended to

prevent damage to the leading edge of

the spring tab, which could result in

loss of control of the elevator.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin

145–55–0009, Change No. 02, dated

May 19, 2000, which describes

procedures for a one-time inspection of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76951

the bolts on the hinge fittings that attach

the spring tab and the servo tab to the

rear spars of the elevators for evidence

of loosening. The service bulletin also

describes procedures for a one-time

inspection of the region of the hinge

fittings on the spring tab for interference

of the bonding jumpers with the leading

edge of the spring tab.

If no discrepancies are found,

operators must perform follow-up

repetitive inspections as specified in the

service bulletin. If discrepancies are

found, operators must perform

modifications, such as replacing the

bolts with improved bolts, installing

washers, installing lockwire or changing

its position, and changing the position

of the bonding jumpers.

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletin is

intended to adequately address the

identified unsafe condition.

The DAC issued Brazilian

airworthiness directive 98–05–02, dated

May 28, 1998, which referred to

Embraer Service Bulletin 145–55–0009,

initial release or further revisions

approved by the Brazilian airworthiness

authority.

FAA’s Conclusions

This airplane model is manufactured

in Brazil and is type certificated for

operation in the United States under the

provisions of § 21.29 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29)

and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement,

the DAC has kept the FAA informed of

the situation described above. The FAA

has examined the findings of the DAC,

reviewed all available information, and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are

certificated for operation in the United

States.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would require

accomplishment of the actions specified

in the service bulletin described

previously, except as described below.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Service Bulletin/Brazilian

Airworthiness Directive

The intervals between repetitive

inspections in the proposed AD (stated

in flight hours) differ from those

recommended in the manufacturer’s

service bulletin (stated to coincide with

operators’ ‘‘A’’ checks). However,

because regularly scheduled

maintenance intervals, such as ‘‘A’’

checks, may vary from operator to

operator, there would be no assurance

that the inspections would be

accomplished during the maximum

intervals proposed by this AD. These

intervals are intended to maintain an

adequate level of safety within the fleet.

Another difference concerns the

compliance time for accomplishment of

the terminating action. The

manufacturer’s service bulletin

recommends that, if no discrepancy is

found during the initial inspection

described in Part I, the terminating

action described in Part II, III, or IV may

be accomplished at any time, at the

operator’s discretion. However, the FAA

has determined that requiring a specific

compliance time is necessary to

adequately address the identified unsafe

condition. In developing an appropriate

compliance time for this proposed AD,

the FAA considered not only the

manufacturer’s recommendation, but

also the degree of urgency associated

with addressing the subject unsafe

condition and the average utilization of

the affected fleet. In light of these

factors, the FAA finds a compliance

time of 2,000 flight hours for

accomplishing the terminating actions

to be warranted, in that it represents an

appropriate interval of time allowable

for affected airplanes to continue to

operate without compromising safety.

Finally, Brazilian airworthiness

directive 98–05–02 refers to EMBRAER

Service Bulletin 145–55–0009, initial

release, or further revision approved by

the Brazilian airworthiness authority.

The proposed AD refers to EMBRAER

Service Bulletin 145–55–0009, Change

No. 2, dated May 19, 2000, which

includes procedures for repetitive

inspections for interference between the

bonding jumpers and the leading edge

of the spring tab.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 71 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD.

The initial inspection would take 2

work hours per airplane at an average

labor rate of $60 per hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact on U.S.

operators of the initial inspection (Part

I) specified in the proposed AD is

estimated to be $8,520, or $120 per

airplane.

The cost impact on U.S. operators of

follow-on actions is specified in the

following table:

COST OF FOLLOW-ON ACTIONS

Action Work hours Cost of labor/

airplane

Cost of parts/

airplane Cost/airplane

Corrective action/ Part II .......................................................................... 6 $360 $71 $431

Corrective action/ Part III ......................................................................... 6 360 2 362

Repetitive inspection/ Part IV .................................................................. 3 180 0 180

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this proposed AD were not adopted. The

cost impact figures discussed in AD

rulemaking actions represent only the

time necessary to perform the specific

actions actually required by the AD.

These figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as the time

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

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. Therefore,

it is determined that this proposal

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that 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) if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

76952 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Empresa Brasileira De Aeronautica S.A.

(EMBRAER): Docket 2000–NM–256–AD.

Applicability: Model EMB–145 series

airplanes; serial numbers 145004 through

145103 inclusive, 145105 through 145111

inclusive, and 145113 through 145117

inclusive; certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent the spring tab or the servo tab

from becoming disconnected, resulting in

structural failure, and to prevent damage to

the leading edge of the spring tab, which

could result in loss of control of the elevator,

accomplish the following:

Inspection

(a) Within 200 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, conduct a detailed

visual inspection, as specified in paragraph

(a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, as applicable, in

accordance with the Accomplishment

Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin

145–55–0009, Change No. 02, dated May 19,

2000.

(1) For airplanes having serial numbers

145004 through 145055 that have not been

modified in accordance with EMBRAER

Service Bulletin 145–55–0009, dated April 7,

1998: Inspect the bolts attaching the spring

tab and servo tab hinge fittings to the rear

spar of the left-hand and right-hand elevators

for evidence of loosening.

(2) For airplanes having serial numbers

145004 through 145103, 145105 through

145111, and 145113 through 145117: Inspect

the region of the hinge fittings on the spring

tab for interference of the bonding jumper on

the attaching bolts with the leading edge of

the spring tab.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a

detailed visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘An

intensive visual examination of a specific

structural area, system, installation, or

assembly to detect damage, failure, or

irregularity. Available lighting is normally

supplemented with a direct source of good

lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by

the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,

magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface

cleaning and elaborate access procedures

may be required.’’

Modification

(b) Perform follow-on corrective actions, as

applicable, in accordance with EMBRAER

Service Bulletin 145–55–0009, Change No.

02, dated May 19, 2000, as shown in the

following table:

TABLE 1.—FOLLOW-ON CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

If * * * And * * * And * * * Then * * *

(1) No discrepancy is found ........... ....................................................... ....................................................... Prior to further flight, seal the bolt

heads and adjacent hinge fitting

surfaces.

(2) Any loose bolt or any interference of the bonding jumpers

with the leading edge of the

spring tab is found.

The airplanes have serial numbers 145004 through 145055,

inclusive.

The airplanes have not been

modified in accordance with

EMBRAER Service Bulletin

145–55–0009, dated April 7,

1998.

Prior to further flight, accomplish

Part II of the service bulletin, including replacing bolts, adding

washers, and changing the position of the lockwire and the

bonding jumpers.

The airplanes have serial numbers 145004 through 145055,

inclusive, and 145056 through

145076, inclusive.

The airplanes have been modified

in accordance with EMBRAER

Service Bulletin 145–55–0009,

dated April 7, 1998.

Prior to further flight, accomplish

Part III of the service bulletin,

including adding washers and

changing the position of the

lockwire and the bonding jumpers.

The airplanes have serial numbers 145077 through 145103,

inclusive; 145105 through

145111, inclusive; and 145113

through 145117, inclusive.

....................................................... Prior to further flight, accomplish

Part IV of the service bulletin,

including adding washers and

changing the position of the

lockwire and the bonding jumpers.

Repetitive Inspections

(c) Repeat the detailed visual inspection

specified in paragraph (a) of this AD, at

intervals not to exceed 400 flight hours.

Terminating Action

(d) Within 2,000 flight hours from the

effective date of this AD, accomplish Part II,

III, or IV, as applicable, of the service

bulletin.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(e) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

Operators shall submit their requests through

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76953

an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(f) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Note 4: A portion of the subject of this AD

is addressed in Brazilian airworthiness

directive No. 98–05–02, dated May 28, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 4, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–31318 Filed 12–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–SW–17–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter

France Model AS350B, AS350B1,

AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350BA,

AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E,

AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, and

AS355N Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD) for Societe Nationale

Industrielle Aerospatiale (currently

Eurocopter France) Model AS350 and

AS355 series helicopters. That AD

requires inspecting the fuselage frame

(frame) for a crack at the fuselage-totailboom interface and replacing or

repairing, as necessary. That AD also

requires a fastener torque check and

retorquing, as necessary. This action

would retain the requirements of the

existing AD but would increase the

inspection interval from 1,200 hours

time-in-service (TIS) to 2,500 hours or 6

years TIS, whichever occurs first. This

proposal would revise the time interval

for inspecting the frame at the fuselageto-tailboom interface to coincide with

the inspection interval specified in the

maintenance manual. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to eliminate confusion and

unnecessary costs and to prevent a

cracked frame, tailboom failure, and

subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–SW–

17–AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room

663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may

also send comments electronically to

the Rules Docket at the following

address: 9-asw-adcomments@faa.gov.

Comments may be inspected at the

Office of the Federal Register between 9

a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim

Grigg, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA,

Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations

Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193–0111,

telephone (817) 222–5490, fax (817)

222–5961.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications

should identify the Rules Docket

number and be submitted in triplicate to

the address specified above. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments, specified

above, will be considered before taking

action on the proposed rule. The

proposals contained in this document

may be changed in light of the

comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their mailed

comments submitted in response to this

proposal must submit a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Docket No. 2000–SW–

17–AD.’’ The postcard will be date

stamped and returned to the

commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 2000–SW–17–AD, 2601

Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,

Texas 76137.

Discussion

On June 28, 1985, the FAA issued AD

85–14–06, Amendment 39–5089 (50 FR

28561, July 15, 1985) to require

repetitive inspections and to repair or

replace the fuselage frame at the

fuselage tailboom interface. On August

8, 1985, the FAA issued AD 85–14–06

R1, Amendment 39–5121 (50 FR 37173,

September 12, 1985), to require

repetitive visual inspections and to

repair or replace the frame, as necessary.

That AD also requires fastener torque

checks and re-torquing, as necessary.

That action was prompted by reports of

cracked frames at the fuselage-totailboom interface. The requirements of

that AD are intended to prevent a

cracked frame, tailboom failure, and

subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.

Since the issuance of that AD, we

have been notified that the inspection

interval of the frame at the fuselage-totailboom interface in the current AD

does not coincide with the maintenance

manual. The FAA has determined that

this may create confusion among

operators as to when the inspections are

required.

We have identified an unsafe

condition that is likely to exist or

develop on other Eurocopter France

Model AS350 and AS355 helicopters of

these same type designs. The proposed

AD would supersede AD 85–14–06 R1

and would require the same actions as

the existing AD except to increase the

inspection interval from 1,200 hours TIS

to 2,500 hours or 6 years TIS, whichever

occurs first, to coincide with the

maintenance manual to eliminate

confusion and unnecessary costs. To

compensate for the increase in the

inspection interval, we propose that the

initial inspection interval be reduced

from 100 hours TIS to 30 hours TIS and

that the visual inspection be changed to

a dye-penetrant inspection.

The FAA estimates that 475

helicopters of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 8 work hours

per helicopter to accomplish the

proposed actions, and that the average

labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the total cost impact of

the proposed AD on U.S. operators is