60640 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

to this amendment because the change

to be effected corrects an inadvertent

deletion from the rule as proposed, is

necessary to prevent confusion in the

administration of the Board’s processing

guidelines for nonexpedited notices

under section 4 of the BHC Act, is

technical and procedural in nature, and

does not constitute a substantive rule

subject to the requirements of that

section. Moreover, because it restores a

statutorily required processing

schedule, the proposal reduces burden

by assuring timely processing of

applications subject to System action.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 225

Administrative practice and

procedure, Banks, banking, Federal

Reserve System, Holding companies,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Securities.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the Board amends part 225 of

chapter II of title 12 of the Code of

Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 225—BANK HOLDING

COMPANIES AND CHANGE IN BANK

CONTROL (REGULATION Y)

1. The authority citation for part 225

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(13), 1818,

1828o, 1831i, 1831p–1, 1843(c)(8), 1844(b),

1972(1), 3106, 3108, 3310, 3331–3351, 3907,

and 3909.

2. Under subpart C, § 225.24 is

amended as follows:

a. Paragraph (d)(2) is revised;

b. Paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4) are

redesignated as paragraphs (d)(4) and

(d)(5); and

c. A new paragraph (d)(3) is added.

The revision and addition read as

follows:

§ 225.24 Procedures for other nonbanking

proposals.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(2) Board action; internal schedule.

The Board seeks to act on every notice

referred to it for decision within 60 days

of the date that the notice is filed with

the Reserve Bank. If the Board is unable

to act within this period, the Board shall

notify the notificant and explain the

reasons and the date by which the Board

expects to act.

(3)(i) Required time limit for System

action. The Board or the Reserve Bank

shall act on any notice under this

section within 60 days after the

submission of a complete notice.

(ii) Extension of required period for

action (A) In general.—The Board may

extend the 60-day period required for

Board action under paragraph (d)(3)(i) of

this section for an additional 30 days

upon notice to the notificant.

(B) Unlisted activities. If a notice

involves a proposal to engage in an

activity that is not listed in § 225.28, the

Board may extend the period required

for Board action under paragraph

(d)(3)(i) of this section for an additional

90 days. This 90-day extension is in

addition to the 30-day extension period

provided in paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(A) of

this section. The Board shall notify the

notificant that the notice period has

been extended and explain the reasons

for the extension.

* * * * *

3. Under subpart C, § 225.25 is

amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) as

follows:

§ 225.25 Hearings, alteration of activities,

and other matters.

* * * * *

(b) Approval through failure to act. (1)

Except as provided in paragraph (a) of

this section or § 225.24(d)(5), a notice

under this subpart shall be deemed to be

approved at the conclusion of the period

that begins on the date the complete

notice is received by the Reserve Bank

or the Board and that ends 60 calendar

days plus any applicable extension and

tolling period thereafter.

* * * * *

By order of the Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, under delegated

authority, November 6, 1997.

William W. Wiles,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 97–29762 Filed 11–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. NM–144; Special Conditions

No. 25–ANM–134]

Special Conditions: Learjet Inc. Model

55 Airplane; 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 Learjet Model 55 airplanes

modified by Learjet. These airplanes

will have novel and unusual design

features when compared to the state of

technology envisioned in the

airworthiness standards for transport

category airplanes. These special

conditions contain the additional safety

standards that the Administrator

considers necessary to establish a level

of safety equivalent to that provided by

the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these

special conditions is October 31, 1997.

Comments must be received on or

before December 29, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on these special

conditions may be mailed in duplicate

to: Federal Aviation Administration,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attn: Rules Docket (ANM–7), Docket

No. NM–144, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,

Renton, Washington, 98055–4056; or

delivered in duplicate to the Office of

the Assistant Chief Counsel at the above

address. Comments must be marked:

Docket No. NM–144. Comments may be

inspected in the Rules Docket

weekdays, except Federal holidays,

between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Connie Beane, FAA, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification

Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,

Renton, Washington, 98055–4056;

telephone (425) 227–2796; facsimile

(425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

The FAA has determined that good

cause exists for making these special

conditions effective upon issuance;

however, interested persons are invited

to submit such written data, views, or

arguments as they may desire.

Communications should identify the

regulatory docket and special condition

number and be submitted in duplicate

to the address specified above. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments will be

considered by the Administrator. These

special conditions may be changed in

light of the comments received. All

comments submitted will be available in

the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons, both before and after

the closing date for comments. A report

summarizing each substantive public

contact with FAA personnel concerning

this rulemaking will be filed in the

docket. Persons wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this request

must submit with those comments a

self-addressed, stamped postcard on

which the following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Docket No. NM-144.’’

The postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Background

On August 27, 1997, Learjet Inc.

applied for a supplemental type
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 60641

certificate (STC) to modify Learjet

Model 55 airplanes listed on Type

Certificate A10CE. The modification

incorporates the installation of a digital

electronic flight instrument system

(EFIS) for display of critical flight

parameters (attitude) to the crew. These

displays can be susceptible to

disruption to both command/response

signals as a result of electrical and

magnetic interference. This disruption

of signals could result in loss of all

critical flight displays and

annunciations or present misleading

information to the pilot.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR

21.101, Learjet Inc. must show that the

Learjet Model 55 airplane, as changed,

continues to meet the applicable

provisions of the regulations

incorporated by reference in Type

Certificate A10CE, 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 modified Model 55 airplane

includes 14 CFR part 25, as amended by

Amendments 25–2 through 25–4, 25–7,

25–10, 25–12, 25–18, 25–21, 25–30, and

certain later amendments, special

conditions, exemptions, and optional

requirements listed in the type

certificate data sheet that are not

relevant to these special conditions. In

addition, the certification basis for the

modifications, and for areas affected by

the modifications, will be amended to

include the following sections:

Section Amendment Title

25.901 ...... 25–38 Installation.

25.1301(d) 25–38 Function and Installation.

25.1303 .... 25–38 Flight and navigation

instruments.

25.1309 .... 25–41 Equipment, systems,

and installations.

25.1321 .... 25–41 Arrangement and visibility.

25.1322 .... 25–38 Warning, caution, and

advisory lights.

25.1331 .... 25–41 Instruments using a

power supply.

25.1333 .... 25–41 Instrument systems.

25.1335 .... 25–41 Flight director systems.

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 Learjet Model 55

airplane because of novel or unusual

design features, special conditions are

prescribed under the provisions of

§ 21.16 to establish a level of safety

equivalent to that established in the

regulations.

Special conditions, as appropriate, are

issued in accordance with 14 CFR 11.49

after public notice, as required by

§§ 11.28 and 11.29, and become part of

the type certification basis in

accordance with § 21.101(b)(2).

Special conditions are initially

applicable to the model for which they

are issued. Should Learjet Inc. apply at

a later date for design change approval

to modify any other model already

included on the same type certificate to

incorporate the same novel or unusual

design feature, the special conditions

would also apply to the other model

under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The modified Learjet Model 55 will

incorporate a new electronic flight

instrument system that performs critical

functions. This system may be

vulnerable to HIRF external to the

airplane.

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 electrical and

electronic 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 Learjet Model 55, which require

that new electrical and electronic

systems, such as the EFIS, 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, plus the advent of space

and satellite communications, coupled

with electronic command and control of

the airplane, the immunity of critical

digital avionics 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 paragraphs 1, or 2 below:

1. A minimum threat of 100 volts per

meter peak 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 following field strengths for the

frequency ranges indicated.

Frequency Peak

(V/M)

Average

(V/M)

10 KHz–100 KHz .............. 50 50

100 KHz–500 KHz ............ 60 60

500 KHz–2 MHz ................ 70 70

2 MHz–30 MHz ................. 200 200

30 MHz–100 MHz ............. 30 30

100 MHz–200 MHz ........... 150 33

200 MHz–400 MHz ........... 70 70

400 MHz–700 MHz ........... 4,020 935

700 MHz–1 GHz ............... 1,700 170

1 GHz–2 GHz ................... 5,000 990

2 GHz–4 GHz ................... 6,680 840

4 GHz–6 GHz ................... 6,850 310

6 GHz–8 GHz ................... 3,600 670

8 GHz–12 GHz ................. 3,500 1,270

12 GHz–18 GHz ............... 3,500 360

18 GHz–40 GHz ............... 2,100 750

Applicability

As discussed above, these special

conditions are applicable to Learjet

Model 55 airplanes modified by Learjet.

Should Learjet apply at a later date for

design change approval to modify any

other model included on the same type

certificate to incorporate the same novel

or unusual design feature, the special

conditions would apply to that model as

well under the provisions of

§ 21.101(a)(1).

Conclusion

This action affects only certain design

features on Learjet Model 55 airplanes

modified by Learjet. 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 the special

conditions for this airplane has been

subjected to the notice and comment

procedure in several prior instances and

has been derived without substantive

change from those previously issued. It

is unlikely that prior public comment

would result in a significant change

from the substance contained herein.
60642 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

For this reason, and 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 immediately.

Therefore, these special conditions are

being made effective 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 type

certification basis for Learjet Model 55

airplanes modified by Learjet Inc.

1. Protection from Unwanted Effects

of High-Intensity Radiated Fields

(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.

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 October

31, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service,

ANM–100.

[FR Doc. 97–29730 Filed 11–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–219–AD; Amendment

39–10199; AD 97–23–11]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dornier

Model 328–100 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Dornier Model

328–100 series airplanes, that requires

modifying the main landing gear (MLG)

bay areas by installing additional slush

protection covers in those areas. This

amendment is prompted by the

identification of a problem during flight

test analysis, which indicated that slush

can accumulate in the MLG bay areas.

The actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent the accumulation of

slush in the MLG bay areas, which

could freeze and interfere with the

landing gear or render it inoperative.

DATES: Effective December 17, 1997.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of December

17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Dornier Deutsche Aerospace, P.O.

Box 1103, D–82230 Wessling, Federal

Republic of Germany. This information

may be examined at the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Dornier

Model 328–100 series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

March 12, 1997 (62 FR 11390). That

action proposed to require modifying

the main landing gear (MLG) bay areas

by installing additional slush protection

covers in those areas.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were submitted in response

to the proposal or the FAA’s

determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

The FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 40 Dornier

Model 328–100 series airplanes of U.S.

registry will be affected by this AD, that

it will take approximately 8 work hours

per airplane to accomplish the required

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. The cost of

required parts will be negligible. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$19,200, or $480 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.