[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 2 (Thursday, January 4, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 247-252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22464]


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

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

    (c) This AD applies to the airplanes identified in Table 1 of 
this AD, certificated in any category.

                 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/federal_register/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