FR Doc E6-22464

[Federal Register: January 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 2)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 247-252]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04ja07-2]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25643; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-135-AD;
Amendment 39-14869; AD 2006-26-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 and ERJ 190 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 and ERJ 190 airplanes. This AD requires
repetitive inspections to detect damaged smoke seals in the aft
avionics compartment, repair/replacement if any damage is found, and
reinforcement if no damage is found. This AD also requires eventual
replacement of all smoke seals in the aft avionics compartment with
new, improved seals having new part numbers, which terminates the
repetitive inspections. This AD results from a report of damaged smoke
seals in the aft avionics compartment of the affected airplanes. We are
issuing this AD to prevent smoke from penetrating into the passenger
cabin during a fire in the avionics compartment.

DATES: This AD becomes effective February 8, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of February 8,
2007.

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, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601

[[Page 248]]

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 and ERJ 190 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal
Register on August 21, 2006 (71 FR 48490). That NPRM proposed to
require repetitive inspections to detect damaged smoke seals in the aft
avionics compartment, repair/replacement if any damage is found, and
reinforcement if no damage is found. That AD also proposed to require
eventual replacement of all smoke seals in the aft avionics compartment
with new, improved seals having new part numbers, which would terminate
the repetitive inspections.

Comments

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM

EMBRAER states that an AD does not apply in this case because there
is no unsafe condition associated with this failure mode. EMBRAER
explains that the smoke seals in the aft avionics compartment are
installed to demonstrate compliance with section 25.831(c) of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.831(c)). EMBRAER states that
the configuration of the smoke seals was approved during the ERJ 170/
190 certification campaign, based on the procedures established by
Advisory Circular AC 25-9A (``Smoke Detection, Penetration, and
Evacuation Tests and Related Flight Manual Emergency Procedures''),
dated January 6, 1994, which, in part, provides guidelines for
conducting certification tests relating to smoke detection,
penetration, and evacuation. EMBRAER states that the smoke penetration
test was carried out under critical conditions with a very large amount
of smoke, and confirmed that the smoke seal is an efficient smoke
barrier. EMBRAER also states that the potential source of smoke coming
from the aft avionics compartment is residual smoke coming from the
electronic equipment, which is designed not to generate fire.
Therefore, EMBRAER states that no fire event is expected in the region,
only a small amount of smoke.
EMBRAER also addresses the damage on the smoke seal and states that
all of the reported cases most likely happened during maintenance.
EMBRAER states that these small damaged areas would not prevent the
smoke seal from working satisfactorily as a smoke barrier, and that
even in case of an unexpected smoke generation in the area, only a
small amount of smoke would enter the passenger compartment. EMBRAER
points out that the presence of smoke wisps in the passenger
compartment was considered in the environmental system safety
assessment, and that there are crew actions defined to mitigate this
condition.
We disagree that an AD does not apply in this case. EMBRAER has not
provided sufficient technical justification that damaged smoke seals in
the aft avionics compartment of the affected airplanes are not a
potentially serious safety problem. Specifically, EMBRAER does not
state whether it has performed smoke penetration testing with damaged
or worn seals. EMBRAER also does not state if it has performed flight
testing or only ground testing for smoke penetration. Finally, EMBRAER
states that it has defined crew actions to mitigate wisps of smoke
entering the cabin but does not refer to a documented cabin smoke
evacuation procedure in the airplane flight manual to support this
claim.
We have determined that an unsafe condition exists, and that
issuing an AD is the appropriate way to correct an unsafe condition. In
addition, Agencia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC), which
is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, issued Brazilian
airworthiness directives 2006-05-04 (for Model ERJ 170 airplanes) and
2006-05-07 (for Model ERJ 190 airplanes), both effective June 14, 2006,
to address the subject unsafe condition. ANAC has not withdrawn their
airworthiness directives, and has not advised us that it plans to do
so. If EMBRAER can provide additional information to substantiate its
statements, we may consider further rulemaking then. We have not
changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Change Incorporation of Certain Information

The Modification and Replacement of Parts Association (MARPA),
states that, typically, airworthiness directives are based on service
information originating with the type certificate holder or its
suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer service documents are privately
authored instruments generally having copyright protection against
duplication and distribution. MARPA notes that when a service document
is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an
airworthiness directive, it loses its private, protected status and
becomes a public document. MARPA adds that if a service document is
used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be
referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document; by
definition, public laws must be public, which means they cannot rely
upon private writings. MARPA is concerned that the failure to
incorporate essential service information could result in a court
decision invalidating the AD.
MARPA adds that incorporated by reference service documents should
be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management
System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA notes
that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method is
brevity, to keep from expanding the Federal Register needlessly by
publishing documents already in the hands of the affected individuals;
traditionally, ``affected individuals'' means aircraft owners and
operators, who are generally provided service information by the
manufacturer. MARPA adds that a new class of affected individuals has
emerged, since the majority of aircraft maintenance is now performed by
specialty shops instead of aircraft owners and operators. MARPA notes
that this new class includes maintenance and repair organizations,
component servicing and repair shops, parts purveyors and distributors,
and organizations manufacturing or servicing alternatively certified
parts under part 21 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part
21), section 21.303 (parts manufacturer approval (PMA)). MARPA adds
that the concept of brevity is now nearly archaic, as documents exist
more frequently in electronic format than on paper. Therefore, MARPA
asks that the service documents deemed essential to the accomplishment
of the NPRM be incorporated by reference into the

[[Page 249]]

regulatory instrument, and published in the DMS.
We understand MARPA's comment concerning incorporation by
reference. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) requires that
documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD
be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking.
This final rule incorporates by reference the documents necessary for
the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we
point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do
become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection.
For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to
obtain copies of the referenced service information.
Additionally, we do not publish service documents in DMS. We are
currently reviewing our practice of publishing proprietary service
information. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this
issue, and have made a final determination, we will consider whether
our current practice needs to be revised. However, we consider that to
delay this AD action for that reason would be inappropriate, since we
have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that the
requirements in this AD must be accomplished to ensure continued
safety. Therefore, we have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Reference PMA Parts

MARPA also states that type certificate holders in their service
documents universally ignore the possible existence of PMA parts. MARPA
states that this is especially true with foreign manufacturers where
the concept may not exist or be implemented in the country of origin.
MARPA points out that the service document upon which an airworthiness
directive is based frequently will require removing a certain part-
numbered part and installing a different part-numbered part as a
corrective action. According to MARPA, this runs afoul of section
21.303 (``Parts Manufacturer Approval'') of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 21.303), which permits the development,
certification, and installation of alternatively certified parts.
MARPA further states that installing a certain part-numbered part
to the exclusion of all other parts is not a favored general practice.
MARPA states that such an action has the dual effect of preventing, in
some cases, the installation of a perfectly good part; while at the
same time prohibiting the development of new parts permitted under
section 21.303. According to MARPA, such a prohibition runs the risk of
taking the AD out of the realm of safety and into the world of
economics, since prohibiting the development, sale, and use of a
perfectly airworthy part has nothing to do with safety. MARPA states
that courts could easily construe such actions as being outside the
statutory basis of the AD (safety) and, as such, unenforceable. MARPA
adds that courts are reluctant to find portions of a rule unenforceable
since they lack the knowledge and authority to re-write requirements,
and are thus generally inclined to simply void the entire rule.
We infer that MARPA would like the AD to permit installation of any
equivalent PMA parts so that it is not necessary for an operator to
request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in order
to install an ``alternatively certified'' PMA part. Whether an
alternative part resolves the unsafe condition can be determined only
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 running afoul of section
21.303 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 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 14 CFR part 21. Those regulations, including
section 21.303, 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 for Compliance With FAA Order 8040.2/Agreement on Parts
Replacement

MARPA also points out that the NPRM, as written, does not comply
with proposed Order 8040.2 (AD Process for Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information (MCAI)), which states in the PMA section:
``MCAI that require replacement or installation of certain parts could
have replacement parts approved under 14 CFR Sec. 21.303 based on a
finding of identicality. We have determined that any parts approved
under this regulation and installed should be subject to the actions of
our AD and included in the applicability of our AD.''
MARPA states that in this case, certain seals have been determined
to be defective and must be replaced with parts not containing the
identified defect. MARPA has reviewed both the MARPA PMA database and
the FAA's database for possible PMA alternatives to the defective
seals, and found none. MARPA states that this does not guarantee that
such parts do not now exist or may not exist in the future and believes
the proposed regulatory action should address the possibility that
there are or will be PMA parts matching those determined not to be
airworthy. MARPA has noted that the FAA frequently states its policy of
identifying defective parts only when they are known, but MARPA is of
the opinion that the FAA's state of mind is irrelevant when
constructing enforceable regulatory actions. MARPA believes that
incorporating the language specified in proposed FAA Order 8040.2
should adequately address this concern.
MARPA points out that the Small Airplane Directorate has developed
a blanket statement that resolves this issue. The statement includes
words similar to that in the proposed Order 8040.2. MARPA also points
out that the Engine and Rotocraft Directorates avoid the issue by
specifying ``airworthy parts'' be installed, leaving the determination
of exactly which parts to the discretion of the installer.
MARPA further states that because the NPRM differs markedly in
treatment of this issue from that of the other directorates, the
mandates contained in

[[Page 250]]

Section 1, paragraph (b)(10) of Executive Order 12866 are not being
met. This paragraph requires that all agencies act uniformly on a given
issue. MARPA therefore requests that we take steps to bring the
universe of PMA parts under the appropriate scope of this AD both with
respect to possible defective PMA parts and the use of possible present
or future approved parts.
We infer that MARPA would like the Transport Airplane Directorate
to include words similar to those quoted from proposed Order 8040.2 in
our ADs. We disagree. The order has been approved and released as Order
8040.5 (AD Process for Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI)), dated September 29, 2006. The approved order does not include
the requested language.

Request To Append Certain Language

MARPA also requests that we append the language in paragraph (f)(2)
of the NPRM to add the following words, ``or FAA-approved equivalent
part number.'' MARPA contends that the addition of those words would
remove any possible conflict with 14 CFR 21.303 that may be raised with
respect to the unmodified text in paragraph (f)(2) of the NPRM.
We recognize the need for standardization on this issue and
currently are in the process of reviewing it at the national level. The
Transport Airplane Directorate considers that to delay this particular
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.

Explanation of Change to Applicability

We have revised the applicability of the existing AD to identify
model designations as published in the most recent type certificate
data sheet for the affected models.

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

The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators
to comply with this AD.

Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Work labor Cost per Number of U.S.-
Action hours rate per Parts airplane registered Fleet cost
hour airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection, per inspection cycle........ 1 $80 None....................... $80, per 78 $6,240.
inspection
cycle
Reinforcement........................... 1 80 Operator supplied.......... $80, per 78 $6,240.
inspection
cycle
Replacement............................. 8 80 $244 to $265............... $884 to $905 78 $68,952 to $70,590.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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):

2006-26-11 Empresa brasileira De Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):
Amendment 39-14869. Docket No. FAA-2006-25643; Directorate
Identifier 2006-NM-135-AD.

Effective Date

(a) This AD becomes effective February 8, 2007.

Affected ADs

(b) None.

[[Page 251]]

Applicability

Table 1.--Airplanes Affected by This AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As identified in EMBRAER
EMBRAER Model-- service bulletin--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, -100 170-21-0017, Revision 01, dated
SU, -200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU February 15, 2006.
airplanes.
ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, and -100 IGW 190-21-0003, Revision 01, dated
airplanes. February 15, 2006.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

(d) This AD results from a report of damaged smoke seals in the
aft avionics compartment of the affected airplanes. We are issuing
this AD to prevent smoke from penetrating into the passenger cabin
during a fire in the avionics compartment.

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.

Service Bulletin References

(f) The term ``service bulletin,'' as used in this AD, means the
Accomplishment Instructions of the following service bulletins, as
applicable:
(1) For the inspections, applicable corrective actions, and
reinforcement specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: EMBRAER Service
Bulletins 170-21-0017, Revision 01, dated February 15, 2006 (for
Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, -100 SU, -200 LR, -200 STD,
and -200 SU airplanes); and 190-21-0003, Revision 01, dated February
15, 2006 (for Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, and -100 IGW
airplanes); and
(2) For the replacement specified in paragraph (h) of this AD:
EMBRAER Service Bulletins 170-21-0018, Revision 01, dated February
15, 2006 (for Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, -100 SU, -200
LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes); and 190-21-0004, dated
December 2, 2005 (for Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, and -100 IGW
airplanes).

Inspections and Reinforcement

(g) Within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD:
Do a detailed inspection for damaged smoke seals in the aft avionics
compartment; and, following the inspection, before further flight,
reinforce around the Velcro fasteners by installing silver tape if
no damage is found, and do all applicable corrective actions if any
damage is found. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 1,200 flight hours until the replacement required by
paragraph (h) of this AD is done. Where the applicable service
bulletin specifies reinforcing around the Velcro fasteners by
installing silver tape if no damage is found during the detailed
inspection, that reinforcement must be done the first time; it is
required again only if damage is found during any repeat inspection.
Do all actions in accordance with the applicable service bulletin
specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. If any damage exceeds the
limits specified in the applicable service bulletin: Before further
flight, do the replacement in paragraph (h) of this AD.

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''

Replacement

(h) Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD: Replace the smoke seal in the aft avionics compartment with a
new, improved seal, having a new part number, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin
specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Doing this replacement
terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (g)
of this AD.

Parts Installation

(i) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
smoke seal in the aft avionics compartment on any airplane that has
part number 170-96563-509, -511, -513, -515, -517, -519, -521, or -
523; 171-04768-501, -503, -505, or -507; 190-15062-501, -503, -505,
or -507; or 190-15902-501, -503, -505, or -507.

Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issues of Service Bulletins

(j) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the applicable service bulletins identified in Table
2 of this AD, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

Table 2.--Previous Issues of Service Bulletins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMBRAER service bulletin Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
170-21-0017............................... December 29, 2005.
170-21-0018............................... December 2, 2005.
190-21-0003............................... December 29, 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(k)(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 Sec.
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

(l) Brazilian airworthiness directives 2006-05-04 (for Model ERJ
170 airplanes) and 2006-05-07 (for Model ERJ 190 airplanes), both
effective June 14, 2006, also address the subject of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

(m) You must use the service information specified in Table 3 of
this AD, as applicable, 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 these
documents 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/ibr--locations.html.

Table 3.--Material Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMBRAER service bulletin Revision level Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
170-21-0017..................... 01................ February 15, 2006.
170-21-0018..................... 01................ February 15, 2006.
190-21-0003..................... 01................ February 15, 2006.

[[Page 252]]

190-21-0004..................... Original.......... December 2, 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 21, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E6-22464 Filed 1-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P