26776 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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 Dassault Aviation, Mystere

Falcon 50, which would require that

new technology electrical and electronic

systems, such as the EFIS, 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 (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 HIFR 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

Frequency Peak

(V/M)

Average

(V/M)

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 Garrett Aviation Services

modified Dassault Aviation, Mystere

Falcon 50. Should Garrett Aviation

Services apply at a later date for a

change to the supplemental type

certificate to include another model

incorporating 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 the Dassault Aviation,

Mystere Falcon 50 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.

The substance of these 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.

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, the following special

conditions are issued as part of the

supplemental type certification basis for

the Garrett Aviation Services modified

Dassault Aviation, Mystere Falcon 50

series 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 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 May 21,

1996.

Norman B. Martenson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service,

ANM–100.

[FR Doc. 96–13426 Filed 5–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–94–AD; Amendment

39–9635; AD 96–11–10]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Israel

Aircraft Industries (IAI), Ltd., Model

1125 Westwind Astra Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to certain IAI, Ltd., Model

1125 Westwind Astra series airplanes.

This action requires a visual inspection

for clearance between the hydraulic

lines/vacuum lines and the electrical

wire bundles, and repair or replacement

of damaged lines or wire bundles with

serviceable parts. This AD also requires

installation of neoprene hose around the

affected hydraulic lines and vacuum

lines. This amendment is prompted by

a report indicating that chafing was

found on a hydraulic line. The actions

specified in this AD are intended to

prevent such chafing, which could
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26777

result in leakage of hydraulic fluid and

subsequent loss of one of the two

hydraulic systems.

DATES: Effective June 13, 1996.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 13,

1996.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

July 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–

94–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from Technical

Publications, Astra Jet Corporation, 77

McCullough Drive, Suite 11, New

Castle, Delaware 19720. This

information may be examined 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2141; fax (206) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Civil

Aviation Administration of Israel

(CAAI), which is the airworthiness

authority for Israel, recently notified the

FAA that an unsafe condition may exist

on certain Israel Aircraft Industries

(IAI), Ltd., Model 1125 Westwind Astra

series airplanes. The CAAI advises that

it received a report indicating that

chafing was found on a hydraulic line

located at fuselage station 383.00. This

chafing was the result of an electrical

wire bundle sagging and coming in

contact with the hydraulic lines in the

area. Chafing of a hydraulic line can

result in leakage of hydraulic fluid. This

condition, if not corrected, could result

in loss of one of the two hydraulic

systems.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Astra Jet has issued Service Bulletin

SB 1125–29–139, dated August 2, 1995,

which describes procedures for a visual

inspection for clearance between the

hydraulic lines/vacuum lines and the

electrical wire bundles, and repair or

replacement of damaged lines or wire

bundles with serviceable parts. The

service bulletin also describes

procedures for installation of neoprene

hose around the affected hydraulic lines

and vacuum lines. Accomplishment of

the installation will protect the

hydraulic lines located at fuselage

station 383.00 from possible chafing.

The CAAI classified this service bulletin

as mandatory and issued Israeli AD No.

96–19, dated February 8, 1996, in order

to assure the continued airworthiness of

these airplanes in Israel.

FAA’s Conclusions

This airplane model is manufactured

in Israel and is type certificated for

operation in the United States under the

provisions of section 21.29 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.29) and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement,

the CAAI has kept the FAA informed of

the situation described above. The FAA

has examined the findings of the CAAI,

reviewed all available information, and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are

certificated for operation in the United

States.

Explanation of Requirements of Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, this AD is being issued to

prevent chafing of the hydraulic lines,

which could result in leakage of

hydraulic fluid and subsequent loss of

one of the two hydraulic systems. This

AD requires a visual inspection for

clearance between the hydraulic lines/

vacuum lines and the electrical wire

bundles, and repair or replacement of

damaged lines or wire bundles with

serviceable parts. This AD also requires

installation of neoprene hose around the

affected hydraulic lines and vacuum

lines. The actions are required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

service bulletin described previously.

Determination of Rule’s Effective Date

Since a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of this

regulation, it is found that notice and

opportunity for prior public comment

hereon are impracticable, and that good

cause exists for making this amendment

effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirements

affecting flight safety and, thus, was not

preceded by notice and an opportunity

for public comment, comments are

invited on this rule. Interested persons

are invited to comment on this 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

under the caption ADDRESSES. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments will be

considered, and this rule may be

amended in light of the comments

received. Factual information that

supports the commenter’s ideas and

suggestions is extremely helpful in

evaluating the effectiveness of the AD

action and determining whether

additional rulemaking action would be

needed.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the rule that might suggest a need to

modify the 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 that

summarizes each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this AD

will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this rule must

submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 96–NM–94–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

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.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation is an emergency regulation

that must be issued immediately to

correct an unsafe condition in aircraft,

and that it is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866. It has been determined

further that this action involves an

emergency regulation under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is

determined that this emergency

regulation otherwise would be

significant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures, a final

regulatory evaluation will be prepared

and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy
26778 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

of it, if filed, 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:

96–11–10 Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI),

Ltd.: Amendment 39–9635. Docket 96–

NM–94–AD.

Applicability: Model 1125 Westwind Astra

series airplanes, serial numbers 004 through

076 inclusive; 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 (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 chafing

of the hydraulic lines, which could result in

leakage of hydraulic fluid and subsequent

loss of one of the two hydraulic systems,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 30 days after the effective date

of this AD, accomplish the requirements of

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD in

accordance with Astra Jet Service Bulletin SB

1125–29–139, dated August 2, 1995.

(1) Perform a visual inspection for

clearance between the hydraulic lines/

vacuum lines and the electrical wire bundles

at fuselage station 383.00, in accordance with

the service bulletin. Prior to further flight,

repair or replace any damaged line or wire

bundle with a serviceable part in accordance

with the service bulletin.

(2) Install neoprene hose around the

affected hydraulic lines and vacuum lines in

accordance with the service bulletin.

(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 Astra Jet Service Bulletin SB 1125–29–

139, dated August 2, 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

Technical Publications, Astra Jet

Corporation, 77 McCullough Drive, Suite 11,

New Castle, Delaware 19720. 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

June 13, 1996.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 20,

1996.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–13230 Filed 5–28 –96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–145–AD; Amendment

39–9636; AD 96–11–11]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all McDonnell Douglas

Model DC–9 series airplanes, that

requires inspection(s) to detect cracking

in the nose skin of the fuselage, and

various follow-on actions. This

amendment also provides for an

optional modification, which would

defer certain repetitive inspections, if no

cracking is detected. This amendment is

prompted by reports of cracking in the

upper nose skin of the fuselage due to

fatigue. The actions specified by this AD

are intended to prevent fatigue-related

cracking, which could compromise the

structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: Effective July 3, 1996.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of July 3, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from McDonnell Douglas Corporation,

3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,

California 90846, Attention: Technical

Publications Business Administration,

Department C1–L51 (2–60). 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 FAA, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron

Atmur, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe

Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles

Aircraft Certification Office, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712; telephone (310) 627–

5224; fax (310) 627–5210.

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 McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 series airplanes

was published in the Federal Register

on January 19, 1996 (61 FR 1301). That

action proposed to require inspection(s)

to detect cracking in the nose skin of the

fuselage, and various follow-on actions.

That action also proposed a provision

for an optional modification, which

would defer certain repetitive

inspections, if no cracking is detected.

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 Extend the Compliance Time

One commenter requests that the

‘‘grace period’’ of the compliance time

for the accomplishment of the high

frequency eddy current (HFEC)

inspection be extended from the

proposed 3,000 landings to 4,000

landings. This will allow the HFEC