55310 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small credit unions. 

Accordingly, the NCUA has determined 

that an RFA analysis is not required. 

NCUA solicits comment on this analysis 

and welcomes any information that 

would suggest a different conclusion. 

Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132 encourages 

independent regulatory agencies to 

consider the impact of their regulatory 

actions on state and local interests. In 

adherence to fundamental federalism 

principles, NCUA, an independent 

regulatory agency as defined in 44 

U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies 

with the executive order. This proposed 

rule, if adopted, will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. NCUA has 

determined the proposed rule does not 

constitute a policy that has federalism 

implications for purposes of the 

executive order. 

Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 1999 

NCUA has determined that the 

proposed rule will not affect family 

well-being within the meaning of 

section 654 of the Treasury and General 

Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 

105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). 

Agency Regulatory Goal 

NCUA’s goal is clear. The proposed 

regulatory change is understandable and 

imposes minimal regulatory burden. 

NCUA requests comments on whether 

the proposed rule change is 

understandable and minimally intrusive 

if implemented as proposed. 

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 741 

Credit Unions, Requirements for 

Insurance 

By the National Credit Union 

Administration Board on September 15, 

2005. 

Mary Rupp, 

Secretary of the Board. 

Accordingly, NCUA proposes to 

amend 12 CFR part 741 as follows: 

PART 741—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

INSURANCE 

1. The authority citation for part 741 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1757, 1766(a), and 

1781–1790; Pub. L. 101–73. 

2. Amend § 741.6 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 741.6 Financial and statistical and other 

reports. 

(a) Each operating insured credit 

union must file with the NCUA a 

quarterly Financial and Statistical 

Report on Form NCUA 5300 according 

to the deadlines published on the Form 

NCUA 5300, which occur in January (for 

quarter-end December 31), April (for 

quarter-end March 31), July (for quarterend June 30), and October (for quarterend September 30) of each year. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–18748 Filed 9–20–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 2002–NM–89–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa 

Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. 

(EMBRAER) Model EMB–135 and –145 

Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document revises an 

earlier proposed airworthiness directive 

(AD), applicable to certain EMBRAER 

Model EMB–135 and –145 series 

airplanes. The proposed AD would have 

required performing repetitive 

inspections for cracks, ruptures, or 

bends in certain components of the 

elevator control system; replacing 

discrepant components; and, for certain 

airplanes, installing a new spring 

cartridge and implementing new logic 

for the electromechanical gust lock 

system. The proposed AD also would 

have required eventual modification of 

the elevator gust lock system to replace 

the mechanical system with an 

electromechanical system, which would 

terminate the repetitive inspections. 

This new action revises the proposed 

rule by requiring installing a new spring 

cartridge and implementing new logic 

for the electromechanical gust lock 

system on additional airplanes. The 

actions specified by this new proposed 

AD are intended to prevent 

discrepancies in the elevator control 

system, which could result in reduced 

control of the elevator and consequent 

reduced controllability of the airplane. 

This action is intended to address the 

identified unsafe condition. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

October 11, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

triplicate to the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Transport 

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, 

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002–NM–

89–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington 98055–4056. 

Comments may be inspected at this 

location between 9 a.m. and 3 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-anmnprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent 

via fax or the Internet must contain 

‘‘Docket No. 2002–NM–89–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 or 

2000 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2125; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 55311 

• 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 2002–NM–89–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. 

2002–NM–89–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, 

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056. 

Discussion 

A proposal to amend part 39 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

part 39) to add an airworthiness 

directive (AD), applicable to certain 

EMBRAER Model EMB–135 and –145 

series airplanes, was published as a 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 

Register on September 22, 2004 (69 FR 

56735) (referred to after this as ‘‘the first 

supplemental NPRM’’). That action 

proposed to require performing 

repetitive inspections for cracks, 

ruptures, or bends in certain 

components of the elevator control 

system; replacing discrepant 

components; and installing a new spring 

cartridge and implementing new logic 

for the electromechanical gust lock 

system. That action also proposed to 

require eventual modification of the 

elevator gust lock system to replace the 

mechanical system with an 

electromechanical system, which would 

terminate the repetitive inspections. The 

proposed AD was prompted by a report 

that cracks have been found in certain 

components of the elevator control 

system in the horizontal stabilizer area 

of several airplanes equipped with a 

mechanical gust lock system. That 

condition, if not corrected, could result 

in discrepancies in the elevator control 

system, which could result in reduced 

control of the elevator and consequent 

reduced controllability of the airplane. 

Explanation of New Relevant Service 

Information 

EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 

145–27–0075, Revision 08, dated March 

3, 2005. (Paragraph (c)(1) of the first 

supplemental NPRM refers to 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–27–

0075, Change 06, dated July 16, 2002, as 

the applicable source of service 

information for the actions required by 

that paragraph.) EMBRAER Service 

Bulletin 145–27–0075, Revision 08, 

contains a new Part IV (originally added 

in Revision 07 of the service bulletin, 

March 2, 2004), which describes 

procedures for installing a new spring 

cartridge and implementing new logic 

for the electromechanical gust lock 

system. Part IV of EMBRAER Service 

Bulletin 145–27–0075, Revision 08, 

refers to EMBRAER Service Bulletins 

145–27–0101 (currently at Revision 02, 

dated December 27, 2004) and 145–27–

0102 (currently at Revision 02, dated 

January 20, 2005) as additional sources 

of service information. We have revised 

paragraph (c)(1) in this second 

supplemental NPRM to require 

accomplishing EMBRAER Service 

Bulletin 145–27–0075, Revision 08, for 

the airplanes listed in that service 

bulletin. We have added paragraphs 

(d)(1) and (d)(2) to this supplemental 

NPRM to give credit for actions 

accomplished before the effective date 

of this AD in accordance with Change 

06 or Revision 07 of the service bulletin, 

provided that Part IV of Revision 07 or 

08 is done. We have also added a new 

Note 2 in this second supplemental 

NPRM to state that EMBRAER Service 

Bulletin 145–27–0075, Revision 08, 

refers to EMBRAER Service Bulletins 

145–27–0101 and 145–27–0102, which 

are currently at Revision 02, as 

additional sources of service 

information. 

EMBRAER has also issued Service 

Bulletin 145–27–0086, Change 04, dated 

March 21, 2005. (Paragraph (c)(2) of the 

first supplemental NPRM refers to 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–27–

0086, Change 02, dated December 23, 

2003, as the applicable source of service 

information for the actions required by 

that paragraph.) EMBRAER Service 

Bulletin 145–27–0086, Change 04, 

describes procedures that are similar to 

those in Change 02 of that service 

bulletin. We have revised paragraph 

(c)(2) of this second supplemental 

NPRM to refer to EMBRAER Service 

Bulletin 145–27–0086, Change 04. We 

have also added paragraph (d)(3) to this 

supplemental NPRM to state that 

actions accomplished before the 

effective date of the AD in accordance 

with EMBRAER Service 145–27–0086, 

Change 02, or Change 03, dated April 

14, 2004, are acceptable for compliance 

with paragraph (c)(2) of this 

supplemental NPRM. We have also 

revised Note 3 of this second 

supplemental NPRM to state that 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–27–

0086, Change 04, refers to EMBRAER 

Service Bulletins 145–27–0101 and 

145–27–0102, which are currently at 

Revision 02, as additional sources of 

service information. 

The Departmento de Aviacao Civil 

(DAC), which is the airworthiness 

authority for Brazil, approved 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–27–

0075, Revision 08, and EMBRAER 

Service Bulletin 145–27–0086, Change 

04. The DAC does not intend to revise 

Brazilian airworthiness directive 2002–

01–01R3, dated November 8, 2002 

(which the original NPRM and first 

supplemental NPRM refer to as the 

parallel Brazilian airworthiness 

directive), because the actions specified 

in EMBRAER Service Bulletins 145–27–

0101 and 145–27–0102; which have 

been added to EMBRAER Service 

Bulletin 145–27–0075, Revision 08, and 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–27–

0086, Change 04; are already required 

by another Brazilian airworthiness 

directive, 2003–01–03 R1, dated August 

26, 2004. (Also, 2002–01–01R3 refers to 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–27–

0086, Change 01, and EMBRAER 

Service Bulletin 145–27–0075, Change 

06, or further approved revisions, as the 

acceptable source of service information 

for certain actions in that airworthiness 

directive.) 

Comments 

Interested persons have been afforded 

an opportunity to participate in the 

making of this amendment. Due 

consideration has been given to the 

comments received. 

Request To Allow Installation of Other 

Replacement Parts 

One commenter requests that we 

revise paragraph (b) of the first 

supplemental NPRM to remove the 

reference to replacing a discrepant part 

of the elevator control system ‘‘with a 

new part having the same part number.’’

The commenter notes that this does not 

account for the possibility that part 

numbers will be revised in future 

modifications of the elevator control 

system. The commenter asks that we 

allow installation of equivalent or 

superseded parts as listed in the 

applicable Illustrated Parts Catalog. 

55312 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request. We have revised paragraph (b) 

in this second supplemental NPRM to 

remove the stipulation that a 

replacement part must have the same 

part number. 

Request To Remove Note 2 of 

Supplemental NPRM 

One commenter requests that we 

remove the reference, in Note 2 of the 

first supplemental NPRM, to EMBRAER 

Service Bulletin 145–22–0007 as an 

additional source of service information 

for reworking the control stand. The 

commenter states that the procedures in 

that service bulletin are not related to 

the modifications of the elevator control 

system and are instead related to 

rerouting the ‘‘go around’’ wires. 

We agree. Paragraph 3.C.(1) of 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–27–

0086, Change 04, states that ‘‘To install 

the new wiring guides and the wiring 

mountings of the thrust lever ‘go 

around’ switch, it is necessary that SB 

145–22–0007 be accomplished.’’

(Similarly, paragraph 3.D.(3) of 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–27–

0075, Revision 08, states that, for 

airplanes with certain control stands, 

145–22–0007 ‘‘should be 

accomplished.’’) Thus, we included the 

reference to EMBRAER Service Bulletin 

145–22–0007 as a convenience for 

operators. Upon further review of 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–27–

0086, Change 04; EMBRAER Service 

Bulletin 145–27–0075, Revision 08; and 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–22–

0007; we have determined that it is not 

necessary to include the reference to 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–22–

0007 in this AD. The contents of Note 

2 of the first supplemental NPRM have 

not been included in this second 

supplemental NPRM. We note, however, 

that if not doing actions specified in 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–22–

0007 results in an inability to comply 

with proposed requirements of this AD, 

operators must request approval of an 

alternative method of compliance 

(AMOC) for the corresponding 

requirements of this AD. 

Request To Consider AMOC for AD 

2002–26–51 

One commenter notes that certain 

requirements proposed in the first 

supplemental NPRM should be 

considered an AMOC for requirements 

of AD 2002–26–51, amendment 39–

13008 (68 FR 488, January 6, 2003). That 

AD applies to certain EMBRAER Model 

EMB–135 and –145 series airplanes, and 

requires revising the Limitations section 

of the Airplane Flight Manual to advise 

the flightcrew of the possibility of 

locking of the elevator during takeoff 

and provides proper procedures to 

prevent it. The commenter notes that 

accomplishing EMBRAER Service 

Bulletin 145–27–0101 (implementation 

of the new gust lock logic) eliminates 

the need for these actions. 

We agree. We have reviewed the 

requirements of AD 2002–26–51 and 

have determined that accomplishing 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–27–

0101 does eliminate the need for the 

AFM revision required by AD 2002–26–

51. Accordingly, we have revised 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2)(iv) of this 

second supplemental NPRM to specify 

that, after implementing the new gust 

lock logic, the AFM revision required by 

AD 2002–26–51 may be removed from 

the Limitations section of the AFM. In 

addition, we may consider further 

rulemaking action in the future to revise 

AD 2002–26–51 to acknowledge that 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–27–

0101 eliminates the need for the AFM 

revision required by AD 2002–26–51. 

Request To Provide Terminating Action 

for AD 2003–09–03 

Two commenters request that we 

revise AD 2003–09–03 to specify that 

accomplishing EMBRAER Service 

Bulletin 145–27–0086, including 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–27–

0102, terminates the requirements of AD 

2003–09–03, amendment 39–13132 (68 

FR 22585, April 29, 2003). That AD 

applies to certain EMBRAER Model 

EMB–135 and –145 series airplanes and 

requires repetitive inspections of the 

spring cartridges of the elevator gust 

lock system, and corrective action if 

necessary. The commenters note that 

replacing the spring cartridges of the 

elevator gust lock system with new, 

improved spring cartridges, in 

accordance with EMBRAER Service 

Bulletin 145–27–0102, eliminates the 

potential for jamming of the elevator 

due to the spring cartridges unscrewing 

in the gust lock system, which is the 

unsafe condition that is addressed in 

AD 2003–09–03. The commenters note 

that this terminating action has been 

added to Brazilian airworthiness 

directive 2003–01–03 R1. (AD 2003–09–

03 refers to the original issue of 

Brazilian airworthiness directive 2003–

01–03, dated February 10, 2003, as the 

parallel Brazilian airworthiness 

directive.) 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request. Accomplishing EMBRAER 

Service Bulletin 145–27–0102, as 

specified by EMBRAER Service Bulletin 

145–27–0086, Change 04, and 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–27–

0075, Revision 08, as applicable, 

terminates the requirements of AD 

2003–09–03. We have revised 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2)(iv) of this 

second supplemental NPRM to state 

this. In addition, we may consider 

further rulemaking action in the future 

to revise AD 2003–09–03 to include the 

actions that were added to Brazilian 

airworthiness directive 2003–01–03 R1. 

Request To Consider Alternative Action 

One commenter requests that we 

allow operators an alternative of 

performing repetitive inspections at 

intervals not to exceed 500 flight hours 

instead of installing the new gust lock. 

The commenter states that the electric 

gust lock has a higher failure rate than 

the mechanical lock, so there should be 

some other solution besides requiring 

all operators to install an electric gust 

lock. The commenter also suggests that 

the manufacturer has sufficient time to 

develop a method of reinforcing the 

horizontal stabilizer to correct the 

problem rather than installing a gust 

lock system. The commenter also notes 

that doing the installation will cause 

airplanes to be out of service for up to 

a week beyond what is necessary for 

normal inspections. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request to add repetitive inspections as 

an alternative to replacing the 

mechanical elevator gust lock system 

with an electromechanical system. The 

commenter did not submit data 

substantiating that repetitive 

inspections would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. We can better 

ensure long-term continued operational 

safety by modifications or design 

changes to remove the source of the 

problem, rather than by repetitive 

inspections. Long-term inspections may 

not provide the degree of safety 

necessary for the transport airplane 

fleet. This, coupled with a better 

understanding of the human factors 

associated with numerous repetitive 

inspections, has led us to consider 

placing less emphasis on special 

procedures and more emphasis on 

design improvements. The proposed 

modification requirement is consistent 

with these considerations. We have not 

changed this second supplemental 

NPRM in this regard. 

Regarding the commenter’s statements 

that there are deficiencies with the new 

gust lock system, we are not aware of 

any deficiencies with this system. We 

have reviewed the service history of the 

electric gust lock, and the data do not 

show a high failure rate. We have not 

changed this second supplemental 

NPRM in this regard. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 55313 

Request To Revise Estimate of Cost 

Impact 

One commenter requests that we 

revise the Cost Impact estimate for the 

actions in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 

145–27–0086. The commenter notes that 

the first supplemental NPRM estimates 

133 work hours for these actions. The 

commenter recommends that we 

consider the 230-work-hour estimate 

specified in the service bulletin. The 

commenter also states that this figure 

doesn’t consider other service bulletins 

that need to be completed along with 

that service bulletin, which the 

commenter estimates could run up to 

338 work hours. 

We do not agree. The 230-work-hour 

estimate to which the commenter refers 

includes time for disassembly and 

assemblage. These are considered 

incidental costs. We recognize that, in 

doing the actions required by an AD, 

operators may incur incidental costs in 

addition to the direct costs. The cost 

analysis in AD rulemaking actions, 

however, typically does not include 

incidental costs such as the time 

required to gain access and close up, 

time necessary for planning, or time 

necessitated by other administrative 

actions. Those incidental costs, which 

may vary significantly among operators, 

are almost impossible to calculate. The 

estimate of 133 work hours stated in the 

first supplemental NPRM is consistent 

with the estimate provided in the 

service bulletin when the incidental 

costs are omitted. We have not changed 

this second supplemental NPRM in this 

regard. 

Conclusion 

Since certain changes described 

previously expand the scope of the 

proposed rule, the FAA has determined 

that it is necessary to reopen the 

comment period to provide additional 

opportunity for public comment. 

Cost Impact 

We estimate that 300 airplanes of U.S. 

registry would be affected by this 

proposed AD. 

It would take approximately 1 work 

hour per airplane, per inspection cycle, 

to accomplish the proposed inspection, 

at an average labor rate is $65 per work 

hour. Based on these figures, the cost 

impact of this proposed action on U.S. 

operators is estimated to be $19,500, or 

$65 per airplane, per inspection cycle. 

We estimate that 108 airplanes of U.S. 

registry would be subject to EMBRAER 

Service Bulletin 145–27–0075, Revision 

08. For these airplanes, it would take up 

to 65 work hours to accomplish the 

proposed modification in that service 

bulletin, at an average labor rate of $65 

per work hour. Required parts would 

cost up to $14,000 per airplane. Based 

on these figures, the cost impact of this 

proposed action on U.S. operators is 

estimated to be up to $1,968,300, or 

$18,225 per airplane. 

We estimate that 192 airplanes of U.S. 

registry would be subject to EMBRAER 

Service Bulletin 145–27–0086, Change 

04. For these airplanes, it would take 

approximately 133 work hours to 

accomplish the proposed modification 

in that service bulletin, at an average 

labor rate of $65 per work hour. 

Required parts would cost up to $23,164 

per airplane. Based on these figures, the 

cost impact of this proposed action on 

U.S. operators is estimated to be up to 

$6,107,328, or $31,809 per airplane. 

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 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. 

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 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 

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 2002–NM–89–AD. 

Applicability: Model EMB–135 and EMB–

145 series airplanes, certificated in any 

category; serial numbers 145001 through 

145189 inclusive, 145191 through 145362 

inclusive, 145364 through 145373 inclusive, 

145375, 145377 through 145411 inclusive, 

145413 through 145424 inclusive, 145426 

through 145430 inclusive, 145434 through 

145436 inclusive, 145440 through 145445 

inclusive, 145448, 145450, and 145801; 

equipped with a mechanical gust lock 

system. 

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless 

accomplished previously. 

To prevent discrepancies in the elevator 

control system, which could result in 

reduced control of the elevator and 

consequent reduced controllability of the 

airplane, accomplish the following: 

Repetitive Inspections 

(a) Within 800 flight hours after the 

effective date of this AD, do a detailed 

55314 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

inspection of the elevator control system for 

any crack, rupture, or bend in any 

component, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER 

Service Bulletin 145–27–0087, Change 03, 

dated September 27, 2002. Where this service 

bulletin specifies to return discrepant parts 

and report inspection results to the 

manufacturer, this AD does not require these 

actions. Repeat the inspection thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight hours or 

15 months, whichever is first. 

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed 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.’’

Replacement of Discrepant Parts 

(b) If any discrepant part is found during 

any inspection required by paragraph (a) of 

this AD, before further flight, replace the 

discrepant part with a new part, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 

145–27–0087, Change 03, dated September 

27, 2002. 

Modification 

(c) Within 10,000 flight hours or 60 months 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

is first, modify the elevator gust lock by 

accomplishing paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of 

this AD, as applicable. This modification 

terminates the repetitive inspections required 

by paragraph (a) of this AD. 

(1) For airplanes listed in EMBRAER 

Service Bulletin 145–27–0075, Revision 08, 

dated March 3, 2005: Do paragraph (c)(1)(i) 

or (c)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable, and 

install a new spring cartridge and implement 

new logic for the electromechanical gust lock 

system by doing all actions in section 3.D. 

(Part IV) of the Accomplishment Instructions 

of the service bulletin. After accomplishing 

the actions in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 

145–27–0101; as specified in the 

Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER 

Service Bulletin 145–27–0075, Revision 08; 

the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) revision 

required by AD 2002–26–51, amendment 39–

13008, may be removed from the Limitations 

section of the AFM. Accomplishing the 

actions specified in the Accomplishment 

Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 

145–27–0102; as specified by EMBRAER 

Service Bulletin 145–27–0075, Revision 08; 

terminates the repetitive inspections required 

by AD 2003–09–03, amendment 39–13132. 

(i) Replace the mechanical gust lock system 

with an electromechanical gust lock system, 

and replace the control stand with a 

reworked control stand, by doing all the 

actions (including a detailed inspection to 

ensure that certain parts have been removed 

previously per EMBRAER Service Bulletin 

145–27–0076) in and per section 3.A. (Part I) 

or 3.B. (Part II) of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the service bulletin, as 

applicable. If the inspection reveals that 

certain subject parts have not been removed 

previously, before further flight, remove the 

subject parts in accordance with the service 

bulletin. Where Parts I and II of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the service 

bulletin specify to remove and ‘‘send the 

control stand to be reworked in a workshop,’’

replace the control stand with a control stand 

reworked as specified in the service bulletin. 

(ii) Replace the return spring and spring 

terminal of the gust lock control lever with 

improved parts by doing all the actions in 

and per section 3.C. (Part III) of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the service 

bulletin. 

Note 2: Part IV of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 

145–27–0075, Revision 08, refers to 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–27–0101, 

currently at Revision 02, dated December 27, 

2004; and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–

27–0102, currently at Revision 02, dated 

January 20, 2005; as additional sources of 

instructions for accomplishing the 

installation of a new spring cartridge and 

implementation of the new logic for the 

electromechanical gust lock system. 

(2) For airplanes listed in EMBRAER 

Service Bulletin 145–27–0086, Change 04, 

dated April 14, 2004: Do paragraphs (c)(2)(i), 

(c)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(iii), and (c)(2)(iv) of this AD, 

as applicable. 

(i) Rework the tail carbon box and the 

horizontal stabilizer by doing all the actions 

(including the inspection for delamination) 

in and per section 3.A. (Part I) of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the service 

bulletin. If any delamination is found that is 

outside the limits specified in the service 

bulletin, before further flight, repair per a 

method approved by either the FAA or the 

Departmento de Aviacao Civil (or its 

delegated agent). 

(ii) Install wiring and electrical 

components by doing all the actions in and 

per section 3.B. (Part II) of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the service 

bulletin. 

(iii) Install and activate the 

electromechanical gust lock system by doing 

all actions in section 3.D. (Part IV) of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the service 

bulletin. Where Part IV of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the service 

bulletin specifies to remove and ‘‘send the 

control stand to be reworked in a workshop,’’

replace the control stand with a control stand 

reworked as specified in Part III of the service 

bulletin. 

(iv) Install a new spring cartridge and 

implement new logic for the 

electromechanical gust lock system by doing 

all actions in section 3.E. (Part V) of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of the service 

bulletin, as applicable. After accomplishing 

the actions in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 

145–27–0101; as specified in the 

Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER 

Service Bulletin 145–27–0086, Change 04; 

the AFM revision required by AD 2002–26–

51, amendment 39–13008, may be removed 

from the Limitations section of the AFM. 

Accomplishing the actions in EMBRAER 

Service Bulletin 145–27–0102; as specified in 

the Accomplishment Instructions of 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–27–0086, 

Change 04; terminates the repetitive 

inspections required by AD 2003–09–03, 

amendment 39–13132. 

Note 3: Part V of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 

145–27–0086, Change 04, refers to EMBRAER 

Service Bulletin 145–27–0101, currently at 

Revision 02, dated December 27, 2004; and 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–27–0102, 

currently at Revision 02, dated January 20, 

2005; as additional sources of instructions for 

accomplishing the installation of a new 

spring cartridge and implementation of the 

new logic for the electromechanical gust lock 

system. 

Actions Accomplished Previously 

(d) Actions accomplished before the 

effective date of this AD are acceptable for 

compliance with corresponding requirements 

of this AD as specified in paragraphs (d)(1), 

(d)(2), and (d)(3) of this AD. 

(1) Modification of the elevator gust lock 

system before the effective date of this AD in 

accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 

145–27–0075, Change 06, dated July 16, 

2002, is acceptable for compliance with 

paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, provided that, 

within the compliance time specified in 

paragraph (c) of this AD, a new spring 

cartridge is installed and new logic for the 

electromechanical gust lock system is 

implemented in accordance with Part IV of 

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–27–0075, 

Revision 07, dated March 2, 2004, or 

Revision 08, dated March 3, 2005. 

(2) Modification of the elevator gust lock 

system before the effective date of this AD in 

accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 

145–27–0075, Revision 07, dated March 2, 

2004, is acceptable for compliance with 

paragraph (c)(1) of this AD. 

(3) Modification of the elevator gust lock 

system before the effective date of this AD in 

accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 

145–27–0086, Change 02, dated December 

23, 2003; or EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–

27–0086, Change 03, dated April 14, 2004; is 

acceptable for compliance with paragraph 

(c)(2) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(e) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the 

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, is 

authorized to approve alternative methods of 

compliance for this AD. 

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed 

in Brazilian airworthiness directive 2002–01–

01R3, dated November 8, 2002. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 9, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–18793 Filed 9–20–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P