Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 70775

used. Suggested default values are a 1

kHz sine wave with 80 percent depth of

modulation in the frequency range from

10 kHz to 400 MHz and 1 kHz square

wave with greater than 90 percent depth

of modulation from 400 MHz to 18 GHz.

For frequencies where the unmodulated

signal would cause deviations from

normal operation, several different

modulating signals with various

waveforms and frequencies should be

applied.

Applicants must perform a

preliminary hazard analysis to identify

electrical/electronic systems that

perform critical functions. The term

‘‘critical’’ means those functions whose

failure would contribute to or cause an

unsafe condition that would prevent the

continued safe flight and landing of the

helicopters. The systems identified by

the hazard analysis as performing

critical functions are required to have

HIRF protection. A system may perform

both critical and non-critical functions.

Primary electronic flight display

systems and their associated

components perform critical functions

such as attitude, altitude, and airspeed

indications. HIRF requirements would

apply only to the systems that perform

critical functions, including control and

display.

Acceptable system performance

would be attained by demonstrating that

the critical function components of the

system under consideration continue to

perform their intended function during

and after exposure to required

electromagnetic fields. Deviations from

system specifications may be acceptable

but must be independently assessed by

the FAA on a case-by-case basis.

TABLE 1.—VFR ROTORCRAFT

Field strength volts/meter

Frequency Peak Average

10 kHz—100 kHz ........... 150 150

100 kHz—500 kHz ......... 180 150

500 kHz—2 MHz ............ 140 140

2 MHz—30 MHz ............. 610 610

30 MHz—70 MHz ........... 80 80

70 MHz—100 MHz ......... 150 150

100 MHz—200 MHz ....... 300 140

200 MHz—400 MHz ....... 160 140

400 MHz—700 MHz ....... 540 400

700 MHz—1 GHz ........... 2400 400

1 GHz—2 GHz ............... 7000 250

2 GHz—4 GHz ............... 8600 840

4 GHz—6 GHz ............... 13700 1270

6 GHz—8 GHz ............... 1800 800

8 GHz—12 GHz ............. 8000 500

12 GHz—18 GHz ........... 3300 560

18 GHz—40 GHz ........... 1800 700

TABLE 2.—VFR ROTORCRAFT

Field strength volts/meter

Frequency Peak Average

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—70 MHz ........... 30 30

70 MHz—100 MHz ......... 30 30

100 MHz—200 MHz ....... 150 30

200 MHz—400 MHz ....... 70 70

400 MHz—700 MHz ....... 700 80

700 MHz—1 GHz ........... 1700 240

1 GHz—2 GHz ............... 5000 360

2 GHz—4 GHz ............... 4500 360

4 GHz—6 GHz ............... 7200 300

6 GHz—8 GHz ............... 2000 330

8 GHz—12 GHz ............. 3500 270

12 GHz—18 GHz ........... 3500 330

18 GHz—40 GHz ........... 780 20

Applicability

As previously discussed, this special

condition is applicable to Eurocopter

Model EC–155 helicopters. Should

Eurocopter apply at a later date for a

change to the type certificate to include

another model incorporating the same

novel or unusual design feature, the

special condition would apply to that

model as well under the provisions of

§ 21.101(a)(1).

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel

or unusual design features on one model

series of helicopters. 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

helicopter.

The substance of this special

condition has been subjected to the

notice and comment period 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. For this reason and

because a delay would significantly

affect the certification of the helicopter,

which is imminent, the FAA has

determined that prior public notice and

comment are unnecessary and

impracticable, and good cause exists for

adopting this special condition 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 29

Aircraft, Air transportation, Aviation

safety, Rotorcraft, Safety.

Authority: The authority citation for these

special conditions is as follows: 42 U.S.C.

7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40105, 40113, 44701–

44702, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715,

45303.

The Special Condition

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the following special

condition is issued as part of the type

certification basis for Eurocopter Model

EC–155 helicopters.

Protection for Electrical and Electronic

Systems From High-Intensity Radiated

Fields

Each system that performs critical

functions must be designed and

installed to ensure that the operation

and operational capabilities of these

critical functions are not adversely

affected when the helicopter is exposed

to high-intensity radiated fields external

to the helicopter.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 31,

2000.

Mark R. Schilling,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–30303 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–273–AD; Amendment

39–11999; AD 2000–23–26]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Aerospatiale

Model ATR72 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all Aerospatiale Model

ATR72 series airplanes, that requires a

revision to the Airworthiness

Limitations Section of the Instructions

for Continued Airworthiness to

incorporate inspections to detect fatigue

cracking in certain structure, inspection

intervals, and life limits for certain

components. This amendment is

prompted by issuance of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information by

a foreign civil airworthiness authority.

The actions specified by this AD are

intended to ensure that fatigue cracking

of certain structural elements is detected

and corrected; such fatigue cracking

70776 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

could adversely affect the structural

integrity of these airplanes.

DATES: Effective January 2, 2001.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of January 2,

2001.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Aerospatiale, 316 Route de

Bayonne, 31060 Toulouse, Cedex 03,

France. 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:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

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 all Aerospatiale

Model ATR72 series airplanes was

published as a supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the

Federal Register on August 23, 2000 (65

FR 51260). That action proposed to

require a revision to the Airworthiness

Limitations Section of the Instructions

for Continued Airworthiness to

incorporate inspections to detect fatigue

cracking in certain structure, inspection

intervals, and life limits for certain

components.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were received in response to

the supplemental NPRM.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, 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 39

Aerospatiale Model ATR72 series

airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected

by this AD, that it will take

approximately 1 work hour per airplane

to accomplish the required actions, and

that the average labor rate is $60 per

work hour. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators

is estimated to be $2,340, or $60 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 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. Therefore, it is

determined that this final rule does not

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

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.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

2000–23–26 Aerospatiale: Amendment 39–

11999. Docket 97–NM–273–AD.

Applicability: All Model ATR72 series

airplanes, certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To ensure continued structural integrity of

these airplanes, accomplish the following:

Airworthiness Limitations Revision

(a) Within 30 days after the effective date

of this AD, revise the Airworthiness

Limitations Section of the Instructions for

Continued Airworthiness by incorporating

the ‘‘Time Limits’’ section of the ATR72

Maintenance Planning Document, Revision 4,

dated July 1999, into the Airworthiness

Limitations Section.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of

this AD: After the actions specified in

paragraph (a) of this AD have been

accomplished, no alternative inspections or

inspection intervals may be approved for the

structural elements specified in the

documents listed in paragraph (a) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

(e) The Airworthiness Limitations revision

shall be done in accordance with the ‘‘Time

Limits’’ section of the ATR72 Maintenance

Planning Document, Revision 4, dated July

1999. This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from Aerospatiale, 316 Route de Bayonne,

31060 Toulouse, Cedex 03, France. Copies

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 70777

may be inspected at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

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

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 95–105–

026 (B), dated May 24, 1995.

Effective Date

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

January 2, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

November 14, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–29607 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–359–AD; Amendment

39–12000; AD 2000–23–27]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier

Model DHC–8–102, –103, and –301

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Bombardier Model

DHC–8–102, –103, and –301 series

airplanes, that currently requires a onetime inspection for wear and breakage of

wire segments of the individual lighting

units of the ceiling and sidewall lights,

and replacement of any damaged

wiring. The existing AD also requires

installation of teflon spiral wrap on the

wiring of the ceiling and sidewall lights.

This amendment adds a requirement for

a one-time inspection to determine if

teflon spiral wrap is installed on the

wiring of the lavatory lighting system,

and installation, if necessary. This

amendment is prompted by issuance of

mandatory continuing airworthiness

information by a foreign civil

airworthiness authority. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent the possibility of a fire on an

airplane due to such chafing and

consequent short circuiting,

overheating, and smoking of the wires

on the aircraft structure.

DATES: Effective January 2, 2001.

The incorporation by reference of

Bombardier Service Bulletin S.B. 8–33–

35, Revision B, dated September 25,

1998, as listed in the regulations, is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of January 2, 2001.

The incorporation by reference of de

Havilland Service Bulletin S.B. 8–33–

35, dated September 1, 1995, as listed in

the regulations, was approved

previously by the Director of the Federal

Register as of July 6, 1998 (63 FR 29546,

June 1, 1998).

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier

Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt

Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K

1Y5, Canada. 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:

Luciano Castracane, Aerospace

Engineer, New York Aircraft

Certification Office, Systems & Flight

Test Branch (ANE–172), FAA, 10 Fifth

Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream, New

York 11581; telephone (516) 256–7535;

fax (516) 568–2716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)

by superseding AD 98–11–21,

amendment 39–10546 (63 FR 29546,

July 6, 1998), which is applicable to

certain Bombardier Model DHC–8–102,

–103, and –301 series airplanes, was

published in the Federal Register on

August 23, 2000 (65 FR 51256). The

action proposed to continue to require

a one-time inspection for wear and

breakage of wire segments of the

individual lighting units of the ceiling

and sidewall lights, and replacement of

any damaged wiring. The action also

proposed to continue to require

installation of teflon spiral wrap on the

wiring of the ceiling and sidewall lights.

Additionally, the action proposed to

add a requirement for a one-time

inspection to determine if teflon spiral

wrap is installed on the wiring of the

lavatory lighting system, and

installation, if necessary.

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

There are approximately 73 airplanes

of U.S. registry that will be affected by

this AD.

The actions that are currently

required by AD 98–11–21 take

approximately 30 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts cost approximately $250

per airplane. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the currently required

actions on U.S. operators is estimated to

be $149,650, or $2,050 per airplane.

The new inspection that is required

by this AD will take approximately 2

work hours per airplane to accomplish,

at an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the new requirements of this

AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$8,760, or $120 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are 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. The cost impact

figures discussed in AD rulemaking

actions represent only the time

necessary to perform the specific actions

actually required by the AD. These

figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as the time

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is

determined that this final rule does not

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

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