490 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on 

December 18, 2003. 

Michael Gallagher, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–240 Filed 1–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. NM272; Special Conditions No. 

25–256–SC] 

Special Conditions: Airbus Model A300 

B4–600, –B4–600R, –F4–600R Series 

Airplanes; and Model A310–200 and 

–300 Series Airplanes; High-Intensity 

Radiated Fields (HIRF)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: These special conditions are 

issued for Airbus model A300 B4–600, 

–B4–600R, and –F4–600R (collectively 

called A300–600) series airplanes; and 

A310–200 and –300 series airplanes 

modified by Canard Aerospace 

Corporation. These modified airplanes 

will have a novel or unusual design 

feature when compared to the state of 

technology envisioned in the 

airworthiness standards for transport 

category airplanes. The modification 

incorporates the installation of 

Honeywell Air Data Inertial Reference 

Units (ADIRU) that perform critical 

functions. The applicable airworthiness 

regulations do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for the 

protection of these systems from the 

effects of high-intensity radiated fields 

(HIRF). These special conditions 

contain the additional safety standards 

that the Administrator considers 

necessary to establish a level of safety 

equivalent to that established by the 

existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these 

special conditions is December 29, 

2003. Comments must be received on or 

before February 5, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments on these special 

conditions may be mailed in duplicate 

to: Federal Aviation Administration, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Attention: Rules Docket (ANM–113), 

Docket No. NM272, 1601 Lind Avenue, 

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056; 

or delivered in duplicate to the 

Transport Airplane Directorate at the 

above address. All comments must be 

marked: Docket No. NM272.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg 

Dunn, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew 

Interface Branch, ANM–111, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2799; 

facsimile (425) 227–1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA has determined that notice 

and opportunity for prior public 

comment is impracticable because these 

procedures would significantly delay 

certification of the airplane and thus 

delivery of the affected aircraft. In 

addition, the substance of these special 

conditions has been subject to the 

public comment process in several prior 

instances with no substantive comments 

received. The FAA therefore finds that 

good cause exists for making these 

special conditions effective upon 

issuance; however, the FAA invites 

interested persons to participate in this 

rulemaking by submitting written 

comments, data, or views. The most 

helpful comments reference a specific 

portion of the special conditions, 

explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. We ask that you send 

us two copies of written comments. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning these special conditions. 

The docket is available for public 

inspection before and after the comment 

closing date. If you wish to review the 

docket in person, go to the address in 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

We will consider all comments we 

receive on or before the closing date for 

comments. We will consider comments 

filed late if it is possible to do so 

without incurring expense or delay. We 

may change these special conditions 

based on the comments we receive. 

If you want the FAA to acknowledge 

receipt of your comments on these 

special conditions, include with your 

comments a pre-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the docket number 

appears. We will stamp the date on the 

postcard and mail it back to you. 

Background 

On November 14, 2003, Canard 

Aerospace Corporation, 13050 Pioneer 

Trail, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55347, 

applied for a Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC) to modify Airbus 

model A300–600 series; and A310–200, 

–300 series airplanes approved under 

Type Certificate No. A35EU. The Airbus 

A300 and A310 series airplanes are a 

large transport category airplane. The 

wide body twin-engine, twin-aisle 

aircraft family offers configurations for 

220 to 360 seats or freighter versions. 

These airplanes have maximum take-off 

weights of up to 378,530 pounds and are 

powered by either General Electric CF6–

80C2 or Pratt & Whitney JT9D/PW4000 

turbofan engines. The modification 

incorporates the installation of the 

Honeywell Air Data Inertial Reference 

Units (ADIRU) to replace aging Inertial 

Reference Units (IRU). The ADIRU 

provide flight critical functions by 

determining the airplane’s attitude, 

heading, and position. The avionics/

electronics and electrical systems 

installed in this airplane have the 

potential to be vulnerable to highintensity radiated fields (HIRF) external 

to the airplane. 

Type Certification Basis 

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 

21.101, Canard Aerospace must show 

the Airbus A300 and A310 series 

airplanes, as changed, continue to meet 

the applicable provisions of the 

regulations incorporated by reference in 

Type Certificate No. A35EU, or the 

applicable regulations in effect on the 

date of application for the change. The 

regulations incorporated by reference in 

the type certificate are commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘original type 

certification basis.’’ The certification 

basis for the Airbus A300–600 series 

airplanes includes 14 CFR part 25, dated 

February 1, 1965, as amended by 

Amendments 25–1 through 25–74; 14 

CFR part 36 effective December 1, 1969, 

including Amendments 36–1 through 

36–22. The certification basis for the 

modified Airbus A310–200 and –300 

series airplanes includes 14 CFR part 

25, dated February 1, 1965, as amended 

by Amendments 25–1 through 25–54; 14 

CFR part 36 effective December 1, 1969, 

including Amendments 36–1 through 

36–12. In addition to the basis cited for 

all of the above models, the certification 

basis includes special conditions, 

exceptions, and variations noted in 

Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) 

A35EU. 

If the Administrator finds that the 

applicable airworthiness regulations 

(i.e., part 25, as amended) do not 

contain adequate or appropriate safety 

standards for the Airbus model A300–

600 series, and A310–200 and –300 

series airplanes because of a novel or 

unusual design feature, special 

conditions are prescribed under the 

provisions of § 21.16. 

In addition to the applicable 

airworthiness regulations and special 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 491

conditions, the Airbus model A300–600 

series, and A310–200 and –300 series 

airplanes must comply with the fuel 

vent and exhaust emission requirements 

of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise 

certification requirements of 14 CFR 

part 36. 

Special conditions, as defined in 14 

CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance 

with § 11.38 and become part of the type 

certification basis in accordance with 

§ 21.101. 

Special conditions are initially 

applicable to the model for which they 

are issued. Should Canard Aerospace 

apply at a later date for a supplemental 

type certificate to modify any other 

model included on Type Certificate No. 

A35EU to incorporate the same or 

similar novel or unusual design feature, 

these special conditions would also 

apply to the other model under the 

provisions of § 21.101. 

Novel or Unusual Design Features 

As noted earlier, the Airbus model 

A300–600 series, and A310–200 and 

–300 series airplanes modified by 

Canard Aerospace will incorporate new 

Honeywell Air Data Inertial Reference 

Units (ADIRU) that will perform critical 

functions. This system may be 

vulnerable to high-intensity radiated 

fields external to the airplane. The 

current airworthiness standards of part 

25 do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for the 

protection of this equipment from the 

adverse effects of HIRF. Accordingly, 

this system is considered to be a novel 

or unusual design feature. 

Discussion 

There is no specific regulation that 

addresses protection requirements for 

electrical and electronic systems from 

HIRF. Increased power levels from 

ground-based radio transmitters and the 

growing use of sensitive avionics/

electronics and electrical systems to 

command and control airplanes have 

made it necessary to provide adequate 

protection.

To ensure that a level of safety is 

achieved equivalent to that intended by 

the regulations incorporated by 

reference, special conditions are needed 

for the Airbus model A300 and A310 

series airplanes modified by Canard 

Aerospace. These special conditions 

require that new avionics/electronics 

and electrical systems that perform 

critical functions be designed and 

installed to preclude component 

damage and interruption of function 

due to both the direct and indirect 

effects of HIRF. 

High-Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) 

With the trend toward increased 

power levels from ground-based 

transmitters, and the advent of space 

and satellite communications coupled 

with electronic command and control of 

the airplane, the immunity of critical 

avionics/electronics and electrical 

systems to HIRF must be established. 

It is not possible to precisely define 

the HIRF to which the airplane will be 

exposed in service. There is also 

uncertainty concerning the effectiveness 

of airframe shielding for HIRF. 

Furthermore, coupling of 

electromagnetic energy to cockpitinstalled equipment through the cockpit 

window apertures is undefined. Based 

on surveys and analysis of existing HIRF 

emitters, an adequate level of protection 

exists when compliance with the HIRF 

protection special condition is shown 

with either paragraph 1 or 2 below: 

1. A minimum threat of 100 volts rms 

(root-mean-square) per meter electric 

field strength from 10 KHz to 18 GHz. 

a. The threat must be applied to the 

system elements and their associated 

wiring harnesses without the benefit of 

airframe shielding. 

b. Demonstration of this level of 

protection is established through system 

tests and analysis. 

2. A threat external to the airframe of 

the field strengths identified in the table 

below for the frequency ranges 

indicated. Both peak and average field 

strength components from the table are 

to be demonstrated.

Frequency 

Field Strength 

(volts per 

meter) 

Peak Average 

10 kHz–100 kHz ............... 50 50 

100kHz–500 kHz .............. 50 50 

500kHz–2 MHz ................. 50 50 

2 MHz–30 MHz ................. 100 100 

30 MHz–70 MHz ............... 50 50 

70 MHz–100 MHz ............. 50 50 

100 MHz–200 MHz ........... 100 100 

200 MHz–400 MHz ........... 100 100 

400 MHz–700 MHz ........... 700 50 

700 MHz–1 GHz ............... 700 100 

1 GHz–2 GHz ................... 2000 200 

2 GHz–4 GHz ................... 3000 200 

4 GHz–6 GHz ................... 3000 200 

6 GHz –8 GHz .................. 1000 200 

8 GHz–12 GHz ................. 3000 300 

12 GHz–18 GHz ............... 2000 200 

18 GHz–40 GHz ............... 600 200 

*The field strengths are expressed in terms 

of peak of the root-mean-square (rms) over 

the complete modulation period. 

The threat levels identified above are 

the result of an FAA review of existing 

studies on the subject of HIRF, in light 

of the ongoing work of the 

Electromagnetic Effects Harmonization 

Working Group of the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee.

Applicability 

As discussed above, these special 

conditions are applicable to Airbus 

model A300–600 series, and A310–200 

and –300 series airplanes modified by 

Canard Aerospace Corporation. Should 

Canard Aerospace apply at a later date 

for a supplemental type certificate to 

modify any other model included on 

Type Certificate No. A35EU to 

incorporate the same or similar novel or 

unusual design feature, these special 

conditions would apply to that model as 

well under the provisions of § 21.101. 

Conclusion 

This action affects only certain novel 

or unusual design features on Airbus 

model A300–600 series, and A310–200 

and –300 series airplanes modified by 

Canard Aerospace. It is not a rule of 

general applicability and affects only 

the applicant who applied to the FAA 

for approval of these features on the 

airplane. 

The substance of these special 

conditions has been subjected to the 

notice and comment procedure in 

several prior instances and has been 

derived without substantive change 

from those previously issued. Because a 

delay would significantly affect the 

certification of the airplane, which is 

imminent, the FAA has determined that 

prior public notice and comment are 

unnecessary and impracticable, and 

good cause exists for adopting these 

special conditions upon issuance. The 

FAA is requesting comments to allow 

interested persons to submit views that 

may not have been submitted in 

response to the prior opportunities for 

comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these 

special conditions is as follows:

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

44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me by the 

Administrator, the following special 

conditions are issued as part of the 

supplemental type certification basis for 

the Airbus model A300–600 series, 

A310–200 series, and A310–300 series 

airplanes modified by Canard Aerospace 

Corporation. 

1. Protection from Unwanted Effects 

of High-Intensity Radiated Fields 

492 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

(HIRF). Each electrical and electronic 

system that performs critical functions 

must be designed and installed to 

ensure that the operation and 

operational capability of these systems 

to perform critical functions are not 

adversely affected when the airplane is 

exposed to high-intensity radiated 

fields. 

2. For the purpose of these special 

conditions, the following definition 

applies: Critical Functions: Functions 

whose failure would contribute to or 

cause a failure condition that would 

prevent the continued safe flight and 

landing of the airplane.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

December 30, 2003. 

Mike Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–239 Filed 1–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 2003–NE–01–AD; Amendment 

39–13422; AD 2004–01–08] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & 

Whitney JT9D–7R4 Series Turbofan 

Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) that 

applies to Pratt & Whitney (PW) JT9D–

7R4 series turbofan engines. This 

amendment requires on JT9D–7R4 series 

turbofan engines with steel fan cases, 

replacement of the existing one-piece 

fan case shield with a thicker four-piece 

fan case shield and would add four fan 

case shield supports. This amendment 

results from two uncontained full fan 

blade fracture events that resulted in 

penetration of the steel fan case and fan 

case shield. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent uncontained fan blade failures, 

resulting in damage to the airplane.

DATES: Effective February 10, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The service information 

referenced in this AD may be obtained 

from Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East 

Hartford, CT 06108; telephone (860) 

565–7750; fax (860) 565–1605. This 

information may be examined, by 

appointment, at the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), New England 

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

12 New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, MA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Keith Lardie, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine 

and Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803–5299; telephone (781) 238–7189; 

fax (781) 238–7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A 

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to 

include an AD that applies to PW JT9D–

7R4 series turbofan engines was 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 23, 2003 (68 FR 19962). That 

action proposed to require on JT9D–7R4 

series turbofan engines with steel fan 

cases, replacement of the existing onepiece fan case shield with a thicker fourpiece fan case shield and would add 

four fan case shield supports. 

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 Update Material Cost 

Two commenters state that the 

material cost in the economic analysis 

published with the proposed AD is 

incorrect. They note that since the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

was issued, a subsequent service 

bulletin (SB) revision was issued that 

quoted a higher price for the 

containment shield kit. The revised SB 

also included a reduction in the number 

of work hours to do the replacements. 

The FAA agrees. We have revised the 

economic analysis in this AD.

Request To Update Service Bulletin 

Revision and Date 

One commenter, the manufacturer, 

recommends that the four-piece fan 

cases, part numbers (P/Ns) 815132 and 

821545, be installed using the 

information found in PW SB JT9D–7R4–

72–583, Revision 1, and PW SB JT9D–

7R4–72–584, Revision 1, both dated 

September 10, 2003, instead of the 

original release of each SB, dated 

December 12, 2002. The manufacturer 

states that the SB revisions require 

changing the position of the shield 

attachment hardware and the assembly 

sequence to provide a better fit between 

the washer and the containment shield 

bolthole. 

The FAA agrees that these SB 

revisions enhance the installation 

process. Removal of the old 

containment shield, and proper 

installation of the new containment 

shield is the purpose of this AD. Since 

we are referencing the SBs for 

additional information only and are not 

incorporating those documents by 

reference, we have removed the date 

from the references in paragraphs (a), 

(b), and (c) in the AD. Removing the 

dates will allow the operator to refer to 

the latest revisions of the SBs. 

Request To Comply at Next Heavy 

Maintenance vs. Repair 

One commenter believes the intent of 

this AD is to incorporate the new fan 

case shield assembly at the next heavy 

maintenance, which would involve 

separation of the ‘‘B’’ flange. During a 

less invasive visit (repair), the 

containment shields are not normally 

accessed and would cause an 

incremental cost increase. 

The FAA agrees. The purpose of this 

AD is to replace the containment shield 

the next time the fan case module is 

accessed, which would involve the 

separation of the ‘‘B’’ flange. The FAA 

has changed the compliance time to 

reference ‘‘shop visit’’ and added 

Paragraph (d) to provide a definition of 

‘‘shop visit’’ that makes this intent clear. 

As a result, the remaining paragraphs 

are changed from (d) and (e) to (d), (e), 

(f), and (g). 

Request for Clarification of Engine 

Overhaul vs. Shop Visit 

The same commenter expresses a 

concern about the ambiguous definition 

of engine overhaul and suggests that a 

simplified clarification might further 

reduce compliance times. The 

commenter also requests further 

clarification that the intent is a shop 

visit for heavy maintenance or overhaul. 

The FAA agrees. Since the AD intends 

to mandate the replacement of the 

containment shield during the next time 

the engine is serviced for an in-shop 

overhaul, and not during on-wing 

replacement, the compliance statement 

is revised by replacing ‘‘engine overhaul 

where access to the fan case aft 

containment area is available’’ with 

‘‘shop visit’’. The definition of shop 

visit is added in a new paragraph (d) of 

the AD. As a result, the remaining 

paragraphs are changed from (d) and (e) 

to (d), (e), (f), and (g). 

Request To Return to Pre-Compliance 

Build Standard To Utilize Spare Parts 

The same commenter asks that the AD 

include a provision to allow the removal 

of the four-piece fan case shield for 

those engines on which the improved 

containment has already been installed. 

The commenter seeks this provision to 

use up inventoried spare parts, but 

acknowledges that the final compliance 

date of December 31, 2012 must be met.