[Federal Register: September 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 172)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52416-52418]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06se06-7]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2005-22125; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-130-AD;
Amendment 39-14745; AD 2006-18-07]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 airplanes. This AD requires replacing the
very high frequency (VHF) antenna located in position 1 of the fuselage
with a new, improved VHF antenna. This AD results from a report of the
loss of all voice communications due to a lightning strike damaging all
the VHF antennas. We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of voice
communication, which, when combined with the complexity of the national
airspace system, could result in reduced flightcrew situational
awareness, increased flightcrew workload, and increased risk of human
error, and consequent reduced ability to maintain safe flight and
landing of the airplane.
DATES: This AD becomes effective October 11, 2006.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of October 11,
2006.
ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL-401, Washington, DC.
Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box
343--CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos--SP, Brazil, for service
information identified in this AD.
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:
Examining the Docket
You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the
Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management
Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 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 street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.
Discussion
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain EMBRAER Model
ERJ 170 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on
August 18, 2005 (70 FR 48500). That NPRM proposed to require replacing
the very high frequency (VHF) antenna located in position 1 of the
fuselage with a new, improved VHF antenna.
Comments
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been
received on the NPRM.
Request for All Very High Frequency (VHF) Antennas To Be Replaced
Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) requests that all of the VHF
antennas on the subject airplanes be replaced with the new, improved
antennas. ALPA suggests that, for redundancy purposes, all of the VHF
antennas should be replaced because ``all'' of the VHF antennas were
damaged in the event that precipitated the AD.
We do not agree to require replacement of all the VHF
communications antennas. Section 25.1316(b) of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FARs) (14 CFR 25.1316) requires that a major aircraft
system that, if it failed, would contribute to or cause a condition
that would reduce the capability of the airplane or flightcrew to cope
with adverse operating conditions must be designed to be able to
recover in a timely manner after exposure to lightning. In the incident
precipitating this AD, the VHF communications system failed because
none of the VHF antennas were able to recover. The newly designed
replacement antenna required by this
[[Page 52417]]
AD has been through considerable testing and we find that sufficient
data exist to demonstrate that it meets the requirements of section
25.1316(b) and will be able to recover function of the VHF
communications system following a lightning strike. Therefore,
replacing the position 1 VHF communications antenna with the new
antenna instead of replacing all of the VHF antennas is sufficient to
ensure system recovery in the event of a lightning strike and will
adequately address the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. However,
operators are free to replace the position 2 and 3 VHF communications
antennas with the newly designed antenna at their discretion. We have
not changed the AD in this regard.
Request for Review of the Subject Airplane's Ability To Handle
Lightning Strikes
ALPA also requests that the FAA look into the subject airplane's
ability to adequately and safely handle lightning strikes and static
discharges. ALPA gives no justification for this request.
We do not agree. This airplane model design was certificated to the
airworthiness standards for lightning protection provided in part 25 of
the FARs (14 CFR part 25). The purpose of these standards is to ensure
that the operation of the airplane is not adversely affected when the
airplane is exposed to lightning. Beyond the event that is the subject
of this AD, we are unaware of any other instances of this model
airplane being adversely affected by exposure to lightning. We have
made no change to the AD in this regard.
Request To Reference Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) Parts
Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) requests
that the language in the NPRM be changed to permit installation of PMA
equivalent parts. The commenter states that the mandated installation
of a certain part number in the NPRM ``creates a conflict with 14 CFR
Section 21.303.''
We do not agree with MARPA's request. We infer that MARPA would
like the AD to specify the manufacturer and part number in order to
permit installation of any equivalent PMA parts. We also infer that
MARPA believes that it is not necessary for an operator to request
approval of an alternate method of compliance (AMOC) in order to
install an ``equivalent'' PMA part. Whether an alternative part is
``equivalent'' in adequately resolving the unsafe condition can only be
determined on a case-by-case basis based on a complete understanding of
the unsafe condition. We are not currently aware of any such parts. Our
policy is that, in order for operators to replace a part with one that
is not specified in the AD, they must request an AMOC. This is
necessary so that we can make a specific determination that an
alternative part is or is not susceptible to the same unsafe condition.
In response to MARPA's statement regarding a ``conflict with FAR
21.303,'' under which the FAA issues PMAs, this statement appears to
reflect a misunderstanding of the relationship between ADs and the
certification procedural regulations of part 21 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 21). Those regulations, including section
21.303 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.203), are
intended to ensure that aeronautical products comply with the
applicable airworthiness standards. But ADs are issued when,
notwithstanding those procedures, we become aware of unsafe conditions
in these products or parts. Therefore, an AD takes precedence over
design approvals when we identify an unsafe condition, and mandating
installation of a certain part number in an AD is not at variance with
section 21.303.
The AD provides a means of compliance for operators to ensure that
the identified unsafe condition is addressed appropriately. For an
unsafe condition attributable to a part, the AD normally identifies the
replacement parts necessary to obtain that compliance. As stated in
section 39.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.7),
``Anyone who operates a product that does not meet the requirements of
an applicable airworthiness directive is in violation of this
section.'' Unless an operator obtains approval for an AMOC, replacing a
part with one not specified by the AD would make the operator subject
to an enforcement action and result in a civil penalty. No change to
the AD is necessary in this regard.
Request To Address Defective PMA Parts
MARPA notes that safety gaps may occur because original equipment
manufacturer (OEM) parts determined to be defective may have been
replaced with PMA parts that are also defective. MARPA further states
that frequently design defects that arise in OEM parts will also exist
in PMA parts, since they may actually only differ in part number, while
sharing the same design data. Therefore MARPA requests that the
defective parts be identified by manufacturer and part number in the
NPRM. MARPA also suggests wording be added to the NPRM that would
``embrace any present or future PMA alternatives to either the
defective part or the `new and improved' part.''
From these statements, we infer that MARPA would like the NPRM to
be revised to cover possible defective PMA alternative parts, rather
than just OEM parts listed in the service bulletin, so that those
defective PMA parts also are subject to the NPRM. We concur with
MARPA's general request that, if we know that an unsafe condition also
exists in PMA parts, the AD should address those parts, as well as the
original parts. MARPA's remarks are timely in that the Transport
Airplane Directorate currently is in the process of reviewing this
issue as it applies to transport category airplanes. We acknowledge
that there may be other ways of addressing this issue to ensure that
unsafe PMA parts are identified and addressed. Once we have thoroughly
examined all aspects of this issue, including input from industry, and
have made a final determination, we will consider whether our policy
regarding addressing PMA parts in ADs needs to be revised. We consider
that to delay this AD action would be inappropriate, since we have
determined that an unsafe condition exists and that replacement of
certain parts must be accomplished to ensure continued safety.
Therefore, no change has been made to the final rule in this regard.
Clarification of AMOC Paragraph
We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure
for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments received, and determined that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously.
We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic
burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
Costs of Compliance
This AD will affect about 43 airplanes of U.S. registry. The
required actions will take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an
average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost $654.
Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators
is $33,712, or $784 per airplane.
[[Page 52418]]
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 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 that this AD:
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
(2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under 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. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
0
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec. 39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
2006-18-07 Empresa Brasileira De Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):
Amendment 39-14745. Docket No. FAA-2005-22125; Directorate
Identifier 2005-NM-130-AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective October 11, 2006.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to EMBRAER Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -
100 SE, and -100 SU airplanes, certificated in any category; as
identified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-23-0005, dated December
29, 2004.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from a report of the loss of all voice
communications due to a lightning strike damaging all the very high
frequency (VHF) antennas. We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss
of voice communication, which, when combined with the complexity of
the national airspace system, could result in reduced flightcrew
situational awareness, increased flightcrew workload, and increased
risk of human error, and consequent reduced ability to maintain safe
flight and landing 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.
Modification
(f) Within 700 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
replace the VHF antenna located in position 1 of the fuselage with a
new, improved VHF antenna in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-23-0005, dated December
29, 2004.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(g)(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) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with 14 CFR
39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards
Certificate Holding District Office.
Related Information
(h) Brazilian airworthiness directive 2005-04-04, effective
April 30, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(i) You must use EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-23-0005, dated
December 29, 2004, to perform the actions that are required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal
Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Empresa
Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343--CEP 12.225,
Sao Jose dos Campos--SP, Brazil, for a copy of this service
information. You may review copies at the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet
at http://dms.dot.gov; or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at the NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/
[fxsp0]federal--register/[fxsp0]code--of--federal--
regulations/[fxsp0]ibr--locations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 23, 2006.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E6-14637 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P