7480 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Proposed Rules

are issued. Should the type certificate

for that model be amended later to

include any other model that

incorporates the same novel or unusual

design feature, or should any other

model already included on the same

type certificate be modified 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 Model Hawker 800 airplanes with

TFE731–5BR–1H engines incorporate a

revised engine electronic control system

and an electronic controlled mach trim

system. These systems perform critical

to safety of flight functions and may be

vulnerable to high-intensity radiated

fields 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

proposed for the model Hawker 800

with TFE731–5BR–1H engines and a

mach trim system. These special

conditions require that electrical and

electronic components that perform

critical functions and are embodied in

the mach trim system or TFE731–5BR–

1H engine electronic control system be

designed and installed to ensure that

operation and operational capabilities of

these systems to perform critical

functions are not adversely affected

when the airplane is exposed to 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 electronic 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–70 MHz ............... 30 30

70 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, the proposed

special conditions would be applicable

initially to certain components on

Hawker 800 airplanes with TFE731–5BR

engines and a mach trim system. Should

Raytheon Corporate Jets, Inc. apply at a

later date for a change to the type

certificate to add or revise electrical or

electronic equipment that performs

critical functions or 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 Hawker 800 airplane. It

is not a rule of general applicability and

affects only the manufacturer who

applied to the FAA for approval of these

features on the airplane.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Federal

Aviation Administration, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these

proposed special conditions is as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. app. 1344, 1348(c),

1352, 1354(a), 1355, 1421 through 1431,

1502, 1651(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 1857f–10, 4321 et

seq.; E.O. 11514; and 49 U.S.C. 106(g).

The Proposed Special Conditions

Accordingly, the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) proposes the

following special conditions as part of

the type certification basis for Raytheon

Hawker 800 series airplanes equipped

with Garrett TFE731–5BR–1H turbo fan

engines and electronically controlled

mach trim system. These special

conditions would apply only to

electrical and electronic components

that perform critical functions and are

embodied in the mach trim system or

TFE731–5BR–1H engine electronic

control system.

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 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, Wash., on January 31,

1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service,

ANM–101.

[FR Doc. 95–3123 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–240–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed

Model 382 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Lockheed Model 382 series airplanes,

that currently requires a revision to the

Airplane Flight Manual to require

takeoff operation in accordance with

revised performance data. This action

would require installation of certain

valve housings for the propeller
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Proposed Rules 7481

governor on the outboard engines. This

proposal is prompted by a report of a

change that had been incorporated into

the propeller governor of these airplanes

during production, which altered the

thrust decay characteristic of the

propeller when operating in an engine

failure scenario. The actions specified

by the proposed AD are intended to

ensure that the airplane maintains

adequate thrust decay characteristics in

the event of critical engine failure

during takeoff.

DATES: Comments must be received by

April 6, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

240–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Lockheed Aeronautical Systems

Support Company, 2251 Lake Park

Drive, Smyrna, Georgia 30080. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office, 1701

Columbia Avenue, Suite 2–160, College

Park, Georgia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Peters, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Flight Test Branch, ACE–160,

Small Airplane Directorate, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office, Campus

Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite

2–160, College Park, Georgia 30337–

2748; telephone (404) 305–7367; fax

(404) 305–7348.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 94–NM–240–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

94–NM–240–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On June 23, 1994, the FAA issued AD

94–14–09, amendment 39–8961 (59 FR

35236, July 11, 1994), applicable to

certain Lockheed Model 382 series

airplanes, to require a revision to the

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to

require takeoff operation in accordance

with revised performance data. That

action was prompted by a report of a

change that had been incorporated into

the propeller governor of these airplanes

during production, which altered the

thrust decay characteristic of the

propeller when operating in an engine

failure scenario. The requirements of

that AD are intended to ensure that the

airplane is operated at sufficient speeds

to mitigate the problems associated with

a faster thrust decay and to prevent the

airplane from departing the side of the

runway.

In the preamble to AD 94–14–09, the

FAA indicated that the AFM revision

required by that AD was considered to

be only ‘‘interim action’’ until a design

change in the propeller governor was

developed to address the ground

minimum control speed (Vmcg)

characteristics. The FAA also indicated

that, once such a design change was

developed, approved, and available, the

FAA would consider further rulemaking

on this subject.

The manufacturer recently has

advised the FAA that it has been unable

to develop a new modification of the

subject governors (which have servotype valve housing assemblies, having

part number 714325–2, –3, –5, –6, or –7)

that would provide adequate thrust

decay characteristics. However, the

manufacturer has advised that propeller

governors with valve housing

assemblies having part number 714325–

1, which were manufactured before the

line production change, do provide

adequate thrust decay characteristics.

On the basis of the data presented, the

FAA finds that installation of these

valve housing assemblies having part

number 714325–1 will ensure adequate

thrust decay characteristics in the event

of a critical engine failure during takeoff

and, thus, will positively address the

unsafe condition presented by fast

thrust decay. This proposed rulemaking

follows from that determination.

Since the problem associated with

maintaining adequate thrust decay

characteristics of the propeller when

operating in an engine failure scenario

is likely to exist or develop on other

products of this same type design, the

proposed AD would supersede AD 94–

14–09 to require removal of any servotype valve housing assembly, having

part number 714325–2, –3, –5, –6, or –7

installed on any outboard engine, and

replacement of those assemblies with

part number 714325–1. Replacement

would be required in accordance with

Lockheed Document SMP–515C, Card

No. CO–135. The proposed compliance

time of 24 months is considered

adequate to accomplish the replacement

during normal maintenance schedules,

and also is considered to be ample time

for obtaining required parts. Installation

of valve housing assemblies, having part

number 714325–1, would constitute

terminating action for the takeoff

operation procedures required by AD

94–14–09; once the replacement is

accomplished, the previously required

AFM revision could be removed.

As a result of recent communications

with the Air Transport Association

(ATA) of America, the FAA has learned

that, in general, some operators may

misunderstand the legal effect of AD’s

on airplanes that are identified in the

applicability provision of the AD, but

that have been altered or repaired in the

area addressed by the AD. The FAA

points out that all airplanes identified in

the applicability provision of an AD are

legally subject to the AD. If an airplane

has been altered or repaired in the

affected area in such a way as to affect

compliance with the AD, the owner or

operator is required to obtain FAA

approval for an alternative method of

compliance with the AD, in accordance

with the paragraph of each AD that

provides for such approvals. A note has

been included in this notice to clarify

this requirement.

There are approximately 112 Model

382, 382E, and 382G series airplanes of

the affected design in the worldwide

fleet. The FAA estimates that 18
7482 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Proposed Rules

airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 8 work hours

per airplane to accomplish the proposed

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost approximately $90,000 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the

total cost impact of the proposed AD on

U.S. operators is estimated to be

$1,628,640, or $90,480 per airplane.

The FAA has been advised that the

only U.S. operator of Lockheed Model

382 series airplanes has already

equipped half of its fleet (9 airplanes)

with the valve housing assembly that

would be required by this proposed

rule. Therefore, the future economic

cost of this rule on U.S. operators is now

only $814,320.

The regulations proposed herein

would 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

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if

promulgated, 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 copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 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. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing amendment 39–8961 (59 FR

35236, July 11, 1994), and by adding a

new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Lockheed: Docket 94–NM–240–AD.

Supersedes AD 94–14–09, Amendment

39–8961.

Applicability: Model 382, 382E, and 382G

series airplanes; equipped with a servo-type

valve housing assembly, having part number

714325–2, –3, –5, –6, or –7, installed on any

outboard engine; 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 use the authority

provided in paragraph (c) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition; or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any airplane from

the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To ensure that the airplane maintains

adequate thrust decay characteristics in the

event of critical engine failure during takeoff,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 60 days after August 10, 1994

(the effective date of AD 94–14–09,

amendment 39–8961), revise the Limitations

and Performance Data Sections of the FAAapproved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to

include information specified in Lockheed

Airplane Flight Manual Supplement 382–16,

dated August 11, 1993, and operate the

airplane accordingly thereafter. The

requirements of this paragraph may be

accomplished by inserting AFM Supplement

382–16 into the AFM.

(b) Within 24 months after the effective

date of this AD, replace the servo-type valve

housing assemblies having part number

714325–2, –3, –5, –6, or –7, with part number

714325–1, on the propeller governors

installed on the outboard engines, in

accordance with Lockheed Document SMP–

515C, Card No. CO–135. Replacement of

these assemblies with part number 714325–

1, constitutes terminating action for the

requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD;

once the replacement is accomplished, the

AFM revision may be removed.

Note 2: Propeller governors with servo-type

valve housing assemblies having part number

714325–2, –3, –5, –6, or –7, may be retained

or replaced with part number 714325–1 for

use on the inboard engine positions.

(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, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Small 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, Atlanta ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

(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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

2, 1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–3073 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–221–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 747 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

certain Boeing Model 747 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

repetitive inspections to detect cracks

and/or corrosion of the girt bar support

fitting at certain main entry doors; and

repair or replacement of the support

fitting. This proposal would also

provide for various terminating actions

for the repetitive inspections. This

proposal is prompted by reports that,

during scheduled deployment tests of

main entry door slides, corrosion was

found on the floor structure supports for

the escape slides of the main deck entry

doors on these airplanes. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent such corrosion,

which could result in separation of the

escape slide from the lower door sill

during deployment, and subsequently

prevent proper operation of the escape

slides at the main entry doors during an

emergency.

DATES: Comments must be received by

April 6, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation