17532 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 69 / Thursday, April 10, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Instrument System (EFIS), Mil Std 1553

data buses and dual head-up displays

that provide critical data to the

flightcrew and a Full Authority Digital

Engine Control (FADEC) system that

controls critical engine parameters.

These systems may be vulnerable to

high-intensity radiated fields (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 issued

for the L382J which require that new

technology electrical and electronic

systems, such as the EFIS, FADEC,

HUD, etc., 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

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–2000 KHz ...... 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–1000 MHz ..... 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

As discussed above, these special

conditions would be applicable initially

to the Model L382J. Should Lockheed

Martin Aerospace Corp. apply at a later

date for a change to the type certificate

to include another model incorporating

the same novel or unusual design

feature, these 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 the Lockheed Martin

Aerospace Corporation Model L382J

airplanes. 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 for this airplane has been

submitted 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.

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

proposed 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 the Lockheed

Martin Aerospace Corp. Model L382J

airplanes.

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.

2. For the purpose of this 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 April 2,

1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service,

ANM–100.

[FR Doc. 97–9244 Filed 4–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–93–AD; Amendment

39–9992; AD 97–08–04]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A320–111, –211, –212, and –231 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Airbus Model

A320–111, –211, –212, and –231 series

airplanes, that requires reinforcement of

the tail section of the fuselage at frames

68 and 69. This amendment is prompted

by reports indicating that the tail section

has struck the runway during takeoffs

and landings. The actions specified by

this AD are intended to prevent

structural damage to the tail section

when it strikes the runway; that
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 69 / Thursday, April 10, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 17533

condition, if not detected, could result

in depressurization of the fuselage

during flight.

DATES: Effective May 15, 1997.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 15,

1997.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,

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:

Charles Huber, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2589; fax (206) 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 Airbus

Model A320–111, –211, –212, and –231

series airplanes was published in the

Federal Register on October 23, 1996

(61 FR 54960). That action proposed to

require modification of the tail section

of the airplane by reinforcement of the

fuselage at frames 68 and 69.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Support for the Proposal

One commenter supports the

proposed AD.

Request to Extend the Compliance Time

One commenter requests that the

compliance time for the modification be

extended from the proposed 4 years to

6 years. This commenter points out that

further analysis conducted by Airbus

has indicated that additional fuselage

frames, beyond those addressed by the

proposal, may also be affected. Airbus

has indicated that it will release a new

Service Bulletin A320–53–1131, which

will contain procedures that include

modification of these additional frames.

In anticipation of the imminent release

of this service information, the

commenter requests that the compliance

time of the proposed AD be extended in

order to allow the rework of all affected

areas to be performed at the same time.

The FAA concurs with the

commenter’s request to extend the

compliance time. The FAA

acknowledges that Airbus will soon

release a new service bulletin to address

other affected fuselage frames. In

addition, the Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de

l’Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the

airworthiness authority for France, has

already issued French airworthiness

directive (CN) 96–009–074(B)R1, which

provides for a compliance time of 6

years for modification of the fuselage

frames addressed in Airbus Service

Bulletin A320–53–1110.

The FAA also acknowledges that, due

to the magnitude of both the

modification required by this AD action,

as well as the modification of the

additional frames that may be included

in the new service bulletin, performing

both modifications at the same time will

decrease the chance for human error to

occur and, thus, enhance safety.

Once the new service bulletin is

released and reviewed, the FAA may

consider additional rulemaking for

accomplishment of the pertinent

modifications identified in Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–53–1131.

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 with the change

previously described. The FAA has

determined that this change will neither

increase the economic burden on any

operator nor increase the scope of the

AD.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 97 Airbus

Model A320–111, –211, –212, and –231

series airplanes of U.S. registry will be

affected by this AD, that it will take

approximately 196 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the required

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Required parts

will be provided by the manufacturer at

no cost to operators. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$1,140,720, or $11,760 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.

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:

97–08–04 Airbus Industrie: Amendment

39–9992. Docket 96–NM–93–AD.

Applicability: Model A320–111, –211,

–212, and –231 series airplanes, as listed in

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1110,

dated August 28, 1995; certificated in any

category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise 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
17534 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 69 / Thursday, April 10, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (b) 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 prevent structural damage to the tail

section of the airplane when it strikes the

runway which, if undetected, could result in

depressurization of the fuselage during flight,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 6 years after the effective date

of this AD, modify the fuselage by reinforcing

frames 68 and 69 in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A320–53–1110, dated

August 28, 1995.

(b) 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,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, 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, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(c) 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.

(d) The actions shall be done in accordance

with Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1110,

dated August 28, 1995. 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 Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point

Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,

France. Copies 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.

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

May 15, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 2,

1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–9009 Filed 4–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–239–AD; Amendment

39–9993; AD 97–08–05]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 747–100, –200, and –300 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Boeing Model 747–

100, –200, and –300 series airplanes,

that requires replacement of certain

switches in the cabin attendant’s panel

at door 4 right and door 2 right with

new improved switches. This

amendment is prompted by reports

indicating that fires have occurred on

some airplanes due to the internal

failure of some of these switches. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent the installation and

use of switches that could short circuit

when they fail, and consequently cause

fire and smoke aboard the airplane.

DATES: Effective May 15, 1997.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 15,

1997.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,

Washington 98124–2207. 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:

Forrest Keller, Senior Aerospace

Engineer, Systems and Equipment

Branch, ANM–130S, FAA, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington;

telephone (206) 227–2790; fax (206)

227–1181.

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 Boeing

Model 747–100, –200, and –300 series

airplanes was published in the Federal

Register as a supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on

January 21, 1997 (62 FR 2981). That

action proposed to require removing

switches S4 and/or S5, or switches S7

and S8, that are currently installed on

the cabin attendant’s panel at door 4

right, and the equivalent switches at

door 2 right, and replacing them with

new improved switches.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Support for the Proposal

Two commenters support the

proposed rule.

Request To Include a New Requirement

for Doors 1 and 3

One commenter requests that the

proposed replacement of the switches

on the cabin attendant’s panel also be

accomplished at doors 1 and 3. The

commenter states that doors 1 and 3

have the same switches that are subject

to the addressed unsafe condition as the

switches at doors 2 and 4.

The FAA acknowledges that the

switches at doors 1 and 3 are prone to

failure; however, at this time, the FAA

has received no reports of fire and

smoke at those locations. The FAA

points out that adding a new

requirement to the proposed AD would

require public comment before adopting

a final rule, hence a second

supplemental NPRM. The FAA has

considered the degree of urgency

associated with addressing the

identified unsafe condition at doors 2

and 4, and the amount of time that has

already elapsed since issuance of the

original proposed rule. In light of these

items, the FAA has determined that

further delay of this final rule action is

not appropriate. However, the FAA is

currently considering issuing a separate

rulemaking action to address the

identified unsafe condition at doors 1

and 3.

Request for an Alternative Method of

Compliance

One commenter requests that the FAA

revise paragraph (a) of the proposed rule

to reference an alternative method of

compliance for replacing the existing

switches with new improved

replacement switches. The commenter

recommends suitable plug-in switches,

in lieu of the soldered switches, as

described in Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 747–33A2252, dated August 1,

1996 (which is referenced in the

proposed AD as the appropriate source

of service information). The commenter

states that soldered switches add