Special Conditions: Cessna Model 650 Airplanes; High-Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF), 41216-41218 [E7-14593]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
41216
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
7 CFR Part 301
[Docket No. APHIS–2006–0116]
Gypsy Moth Generally Infested Areas;
Addition of Counties in Ohio and West
Virginia
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as
final rule.
AGENCY:
We are adopting as a final
rule, without change, an interim rule
that amended the gypsy moth
regulations by adding Delaware and
Franklin Counties in Ohio and Monroe
County in West Virginia to the list of
generally infested areas based upon the
detection of infestations of gypsy moth
in those counties. As a result of the
interim rule, the interstate movement of
regulated articles from those areas is
restricted. The interim rule was
necessary to prevent the artificial spread
of the gypsy moth to noninfested States.
DATES: Effective on July 27, 2007, we are
adopting as a final rule the interim rule
published at 71 FR 53546–53547 on
September 12, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Weyman Fussell, Program Manager, Pest
Detection and Management Programs,
PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734–
5705.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Background
The gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar
(Linnaeus), is a destructive pest of forest
and shade trees. The gypsy moth
regulations (contained in 7 CFR 301.45
through 301.45–12 and referred to
below as the regulations) restrict the
interstate movement of regulated
articles from generally infested areas to
prevent the artificial spread of the gypsy
moth.
In an interim rule 1 effective and
published in the Federal Register on
September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53546–
53547, Docket No. APHIS–2006–0116),
we amended the gypsy moth regulations
by adding Delaware and Franklin
Counties in Ohio and Monroe County in
West Virginia to the list of generally
1 To view the interim rule, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, click on the ‘‘Advanced
Search’’ tab, and select ‘‘Docket Search.’’ In the
Docket ID field, enter APHIS–2006–0116, then click
‘‘Submit.’’ Clicking on the Docket ID link in the
search results page will produce the document in
the docket.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:44 Jul 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
infested areas. Comments on the interim
rule were required to be received on or
before November 13, 2006. We did not
receive any comments. Therefore, for
the reasons given in the interim rule, we
are adopting the interim rule as a final
rule.
This action also affirms the
information contained in the interim
rule concerning Executive Orders
12866, 12372, and 12988, and the
Paperwork Reduction Act. Further, for
this action, the Office of Management
and Budget has waived its review under
Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The following analysis addresses the
economic effects of the interim rule on
small entities, as required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The rule
affected the interstate movement of
regulated articles, including forest
products (logs, pulpwood, wood chips)
and Christmas trees, nursery stock, and
mobile homes and outdoor household
articles from and through Delaware and
Franklin Counties in Ohio and Monroe
County in West Virginia.
Most of the area of the three counties
now considered generally infested are
on the fringe of generally infested areas
and do not have high levels of
infestation. In the three newly
quarantined counties, there are 161
establishments that produce and ship
regulated articles. Many of the
establishments are in areas where there
is negligible or no infestation. Of these,
38 are Christmas tree growers and 123
are nurseries. Nearly 99 percent of the
establishments are considered to be
small businesses. Sales of forest
products and Christmas trees in the
affected counties in 2002 were valued at
$33 million, representing about 6.7
percent of the total values of such sales
in the two States. There were 950
shipments of shrubs and trees, nursery
items, and Christmas trees. Of those,
only 200 shipments were to nonregulated areas.
The regulatory requirements of the
regulations are expected to cause a
slight increase in the costs of business
for affected entities. However, any
negative economic effects are small
when compared with the potential for
harm to the forest industry and the U.S.
economy as a whole that would result
from the spread of the pest. Since the
total value of regulated articles moved
from the affected counties to nonregulated areas is a small fraction of the
national total, the regulatory effect on
national prices is expected to be
insignificant. Additionally, since the
regulations do not prohibit movement of
regulated articles, articles that meet the
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
requirements of the regulations can
continue to enter the market. The
overall impact upon price and
competitiveness is expected to be
insignificant.
Under these circumstances, the
Administrator of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service has
determined that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301
Agricultural commodities, Plant
diseases and pests, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE
NOTICES
Accordingly, we are adopting as a
final rule, without change, the interim
rule that amended 7 CFR part 301 and
that was published at 71 FR 53546–
53547 on September 12, 2006.
I
Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of
July 2007.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E7–14527 Filed 7–26–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. NM380; Special Conditions No.
25–361–SC]
Special Conditions: Cessna Model 650
Airplanes; High-Intensity Radiated
Fields (HIRF)
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final special conditions; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: These special conditions are
issued for Cessna Model 650 airplanes
modified by Columbia Avionics, Inc.
These modified airplanes will have a
novel or unusual design feature when
compared to the state of technology
envisioned in the airworthiness
standards for transport category
airplanes. The modification consists of
installing an Electronic Flight
Instrument System (EFIS) with the
options for the Universal Avionics
Vision 1 Synthetic Vision System. The
applicable airworthiness regulations do
not contain adequate or appropriate
safety standards for the protection of
these systems from the effects of high-
E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM
27JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
intensity radiated fields (HIRF). These
special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to
that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.
DATES: The effective date of these
special conditions is July 18, 2007. We
must receive your comments by August
27, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You must mail two copies
of your comments to: Federal Aviation
Administration, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Attention: Rules Docket
(ANM–113), Docket No. NM380, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057–3356. You may deliver two
copies to the Transport Airplane
Directorate at the above address. You
must mark your comments: Docket No.
NM380. You can inspect comments in
the Rules Docket weekdays, except
Federal Holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and
4 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg
Dunn, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew
Interface Branch, ANM–111, Transport
Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356;
telephone (425) 227–2799; facsimile
(425) 227–1320.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA has determined that notice
and opportunity for prior public
comment is impracticable because these
procedures would significantly delay
certification of the airplane and thus
delivery of the affected aircraft. In
addition, the substance of these special
conditions has been subject to the
public comment process in several prior
instances with no substantive comments
received. The FAA therefore finds that
good cause exists for making these
special conditions effective upon
issuance; however, we invite interested
people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or
views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the
special conditions, explain the reason
for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. We ask that
you send us two copies of written
comments.
We will file in the docket all
comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive
public contact with FAA personnel
about these special conditions. You may
inspect the docket before and after the
comment closing date. If you wish to
review the docket in person, go to the
address in the ADDRESSES section of this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:44 Jul 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
We will consider all comments we
receive by the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments
filed late if it is possible to do so
without incurring expense or delay. We
may change these special conditions
based on the comments we receive.
If you want the FAA to acknowledge
receipt of your comments on these
special conditions, include with your
comments a pre-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the docket number
appears. We will stamp the date on the
postcard and mail it back to you.
Background
On March 15, 2007, Columbia
Avionics, Inc., 11200 Airport Road,
Columbia, Missouri, 65201, applied for
a supplemental type certificate (STC) to
modify Cessna Model 650 airplanes.
The Cessna Model 650 is a low-wing,
pressurized, transport category airplane
with two fuselage-mounted jet engines.
It can seat up to 19 passengers, with a
crew of two pilots. The modification
consists of installing an electronic flight
instrument system (EFIS) with the
options for the Universal Avionics
Vision 1 Synthetic Vision System. These
systems have the potential to be
vulnerable to high-intensity radiated
fields (HIRF) external to the airplane.
Type Certification Basis
Under 14 CFR 21.101, Columbia
Avionics, Inc., must show that the
Cessna Model 650 airplanes, as
changed, continue to meet the
applicable provisions of the regulations
incorporated by reference in Type
Certificate No. A9NM, 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 regulations
incorporated by reference in Type
Certificate No. A9NM include the
following: Part 25 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (FAR) effective
February 1, 1965, as amended by
Amendments 25–1 through 25–39. In
addition, the following regulations
apply: §§ 25.901(c) and 25.1199, as
amended by Amendments 25–1 through
25–40; §§ 25.1309 and 25.1351(d), as
amended by Amendments 25–1 through
25–41; §§ 25.177, 25.255, and 25.703, as
amended by Amendments 25–1 through
25–42; § 25.1326, as amended by
Amendments 25–1 through 25–43;
§ 25.1413, as amended by Amendments
25–1 through 25–44; and §§ 25.1305 and
25.1529, as amended by Amendments
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41217
25–1 through 25–54. In addition, the
certification basis includes certain
special conditions, exemptions,
equivalent levels of safety, or later
amended sections of the applicable part
25 regulations that are not relevant to
these special conditions. These special
conditions will form an additional part
of the supplemental type certification
basis.
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 Cessna Model 650
airplanes because of a novel or unusual
design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under § 21.16.
Besides the applicable airworthiness
regulations and special conditions, the
Cessna Model 650 airplanes must
comply with the fuel vent and exhaust
emission requirements of 14 CFR part
34 and the noise certification
requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
Special conditions, as defined in 14
CFR 11.19, are issued under § 11.38 and
become part of the type certification
basis under § 21.101.
Special conditions are initially
applicable to the model for which they
are issued. Should Columbia Avionics
apply later for a supplemental type
certificate to modify any other model
included on Type Certificate No. A9NM
to incorporate the same or similar novel
or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would also apply to the other
model under § 21.101.
Novel or Unusual Design Features
As noted earlier, the Cessna Model
650 airplanes modified Columbia
Avionics will incorporate dual
Electronic Primary Flight Displays that
will perform critical functions. This
system may be vulnerable to highintensity radiated fields external to the
airplane. The current airworthiness
standards of part 25 do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards
for the protection of this equipment
from the adverse effects of HIRF.
Accordingly, this system is considered
to be a novel or unusual design feature.
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 avionics/
electronics and electrical 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
E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM
27JYR1
41218
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
the regulations incorporated by
reference, special conditions are needed
for the Cessna 650 airplanes modified
by Columbia Avionics. These special
conditions require that new avionics/
electronics and electrical systems 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, and the advent of space
and satellite communications coupled
with electronic command and control of
the airplane, the immunity of critical
avionics/electronics and electrical
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 paragraph 1 OR 2 below:
1. A minimum threat of 100 volts rms
(root-mean-square) per meter 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 field strengths identified in the table
below for the frequency ranges
indicated. Both peak and average field
strength components from the table are
to be demonstrated.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Frequency
10 kHz–100 kHz ...........
100 kHz–500 kHz .........
500 kHz–2 MHz ............
2 MHz–30 MHz .............
30 MHz–70 MHz ...........
70 MHz–100 MHz .........
100 MHz–200 MHz .......
200 MHz–400 MHz .......
400 MHz–700 MHz .......
700 MHz–1 GHz ...........
1 GHz–2 GHz ...............
2 GHz–4 GHz ...............
4 GHz–6 GHz ...............
6 GHz–8 GHz ...............
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Field strength
(volts per meter)
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the following special conditions are
8 GHz–12 GHz .............
3000
300 issued as part of the supplemental type
12 GHz–18 GHz ...........
2000
200 certification basis for the Cessna Model
18 GHz–40 GHz ...........
600
200 650 airplanes modified by Columbia
The field strengths are expressed in terms Avionics.
1. Protection from Unwanted Effects
of peak of the root-mean-square (rms) over
the complete modulation period.
of High-Intensity Radiated Fields
(HIRF). Each electrical and electronic
The threat levels identified above are
system that performs critical functions
the result of an FAA review of existing
must be designed and installed to
studies on the subject of HIRF, in light
ensure that the operation and
of the ongoing work of the
operational capability of these systems
Electromagnetic Effects Harmonization
to perform critical functions are not
Working Group of the Aviation
adversely affected when the airplane is
Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
exposed to high-intensity radiated
Applicability
fields.
2. For the purpose of these special
As discussed above, these special
conditions, the following definition
conditions are applicable to Cessna
applies:
Model 650 airplanes modified by
Critical Functions: Functions whose
Columbia Avionics. Should Columbia
failure would contribute to or cause a
Avionics apply later for a supplemental failure condition that would prevent the
type certificate to modify any other
continued safe flight and landing of the
model included on Type Certificate No. airplane.
A9NM to incorporate the same or
Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 18,
similar novel or unusual design feature,
2007.
these special conditions would apply to
Stephen P. Boyd,
that model as well under § 21.101.
Frequency
Peak
17:44 Jul 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
50
50
100
100
50
100
200
200
200
200
Conclusion
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:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701,
44702, 44704.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I
Average
This action affects only certain novel
or unusual design features on Cessna
Model 650 airplanes modified by
Columbia Avionics. 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 has been subjected to the
notice and comment procedure in
several prior instances and has been
derived without substantive change
from those previously issued. 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
Field strength
unnecessary and impracticable, and
(volts per meter)
good cause exists for adopting these
Peak
Average special conditions upon issuance. The
FAA is requesting comments to allow
50
50 interested persons to submit views that
50
50 may not have been submitted in
50
50 response to the prior opportunities for
100
100 comment described above.
50
50
100
100
700
700
2000
3000
3000
1000
The Special Conditions
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7–14593 Filed 7–26–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 97
[Docket No. 30560 Amdt. No. 3227]
Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures, Weather Takeoff
Minimums; Miscellaneous
Amendments
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This amendment establishes,
amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures
(SIAPs) and/or Weather Takeoff
Minimums for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are
needed because of the adoption of new
or revised criteria, or because of changes
occurring in the National Airspace
System, such as the commissioning of
new navigational facilities, addition of
new obstacles, or changes in air traffic
requirements. These changes are
designed to provide safe and efficient
use of the navigable airspace and to
promote safe flight operations under
E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM
27JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 144 (Friday, July 27, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41216-41218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14593]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. NM380; Special Conditions No. 25-361-SC]
Special Conditions: Cessna Model 650 Airplanes; 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 Cessna Model 650
airplanes modified by Columbia Avionics, Inc. These modified airplanes
will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state
of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport
category airplanes. The modification consists of installing an
Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) with the options for the
Universal Avionics Vision 1 Synthetic Vision System. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for the protection of these systems from the effects of high-
[[Page 41217]]
intensity radiated fields (HIRF). These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.
DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is July 18, 2007.
We must receive your comments by August 27, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You must mail two copies of your comments to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attention:
Rules Docket (ANM-113), Docket No. NM380, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356. You may deliver two copies to the Transport
Airplane Directorate at the above address. You must mark your comments:
Docket No. NM380. You can inspect comments in the Rules Docket
weekdays, except Federal Holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Dunn, FAA, Airplane and Flight
Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2799; facsimile (425) 227-
1320.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public
comment is impracticable because these procedures would significantly
delay certification of the airplane and thus delivery of the affected
aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has
been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances
with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that
good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon
issuance; however, we invite interested people to take part in this
rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most
helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special
conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include
supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written
comments.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
about these special conditions. You may inspect the docket before and
after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in
person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble
between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do
so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special
conditions based on the comments we receive.
If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on
these special conditions, include with your comments a pre-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the
date on the postcard and mail it back to you.
Background
On March 15, 2007, Columbia Avionics, Inc., 11200 Airport Road,
Columbia, Missouri, 65201, applied for a supplemental type certificate
(STC) to modify Cessna Model 650 airplanes. The Cessna Model 650 is a
low-wing, pressurized, transport category airplane with two fuselage-
mounted jet engines. It can seat up to 19 passengers, with a crew of
two pilots. The modification consists of installing an electronic
flight instrument system (EFIS) with the options for the Universal
Avionics Vision 1 Synthetic Vision System. These systems have the
potential to be vulnerable to high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF)
external to the airplane.
Type Certification Basis
Under 14 CFR 21.101, Columbia Avionics, Inc., must show that the
Cessna Model 650 airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable
provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type
Certificate No. A9NM, 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 regulations incorporated by
reference in Type Certificate No. A9NM include the following: Part 25
of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) effective February 1, 1965,
as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-39. In addition, the following
regulations apply: Sec. Sec. 25.901(c) and 25.1199, as amended by
Amendments 25-1 through 25-40; Sec. Sec. 25.1309 and 25.1351(d), as
amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-41; Sec. Sec. 25.177, 25.255,
and 25.703, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-42; Sec. 25.1326,
as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-43; Sec. 25.1413, as amended
by Amendments 25-1 through 25-44; and Sec. Sec. 25.1305 and 25.1529,
as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-54. In addition, the
certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions,
equivalent levels of safety, or later amended sections of the
applicable part 25 regulations that are not relevant to these special
conditions. These special conditions will form an additional part of
the supplemental type certification basis.
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 Cessna Model 650 airplanes because
of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under Sec. 21.16.
Besides the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Cessna Model 650 airplanes must comply with the fuel
vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
Special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, are issued under
Sec. 11.38 and become part of the type certification basis under Sec.
21.101.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should Columbia Avionics apply later for a
supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on
Type Certificate No. A9NM to incorporate the same or similar novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec. 21.101.
Novel or Unusual Design Features
As noted earlier, the Cessna Model 650 airplanes modified Columbia
Avionics will incorporate dual Electronic Primary Flight Displays that
will perform critical functions. This system may be vulnerable to high-
intensity radiated fields external to the airplane. The current
airworthiness standards of part 25 do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the protection of this equipment from
the adverse effects of HIRF. Accordingly, this system is considered to
be a novel or unusual design feature.
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 avionics/electronics and electrical 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
[[Page 41218]]
the regulations incorporated by reference, special conditions are
needed for the Cessna 650 airplanes modified by Columbia Avionics.
These special conditions require that new avionics/electronics and
electrical systems 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, and the advent of space and satellite communications
coupled with electronic command and control of the airplane, the
immunity of critical avionics/electronics and electrical 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 cockpit-installed
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 paragraph 1 OR 2 below:
1. A minimum threat of 100 volts rms (root-mean-square) per meter
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 field strengths
identified in the table below for the frequency ranges indicated. Both
peak and average field strength components from the table are to be
demonstrated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field strength
(volts per meter)
Frequency -------------------
Peak Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 kHz-100 kHz...................................... 50 50
100 kHz-500 kHz..................................... 50 50
500 kHz-2 MHz....................................... 50 50
2 MHz-30 MHz........................................ 100 100
30 MHz-70 MHz....................................... 50 50
70 MHz-100 MHz...................................... 50 50
100 MHz-200 MHz..................................... 100 100
200 MHz-400 MHz..................................... 100 100
400 MHz-700 MHz..................................... 700 50
700 MHz-1 GHz....................................... 700 100
1 GHz-2 GHz......................................... 2000 200
2 GHz-4 GHz......................................... 3000 200
4 GHz-6 GHz......................................... 3000 200
6 GHz-8 GHz......................................... 1000 200
8 GHz-12 GHz........................................ 3000 300
12 GHz-18 GHz....................................... 2000 200
18 GHz-40 GHz....................................... 600 200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The field strengths are expressed in terms of peak of the root-mean-
square (rms) over the complete modulation period.
The threat levels identified above are the result of an FAA review
of existing studies on the subject of HIRF, in light of the ongoing
work of the Electromagnetic Effects Harmonization Working Group of the
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
Applicability
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to
Cessna Model 650 airplanes modified by Columbia Avionics. Should
Columbia Avionics apply later for a supplemental type certificate to
modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. A9NM to
incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, these
special conditions would apply to that model as well under Sec.
21.101.
Conclusion
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on Cessna Model 650 airplanes modified by Columbia Avionics. 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 has been subjected to the
notice and comment procedure in several prior instances and has been
derived without substantive change from those previously issued.
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 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.
0
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
The Special Conditions
0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the supplemental type certification basis for the Cessna Model 650
airplanes modified by Columbia Avionics.
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 July 18, 2007.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-14593 Filed 7-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
