|
A Cryptome DVD is offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for a DVD of the Cryptome 11-years archives of 41,000 files from June 1996 to June 2007 (~4.4 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. Archives include all files of cryptome.org, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org. Cryptome offers with the Cryptome DVD an INSCOM DVD of about 18,000 pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985. No additional contribution required -- $25 for both. The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost. |
7 August 2007
[Federal Register: August 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 150)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44015-44028]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06au07-17]
[[Page 44015]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 23, 25, 27 and 29
High-Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Protection for Aircraft
Electrical and Electronic Systems; Final Rule
[[Page 44016]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 23, 25, 27, and 29
[Docket No. FAA-2006-23657; Amendment Nos. 23-57, 25-122, 27-42, and
29-49]
RIN 2120-AI06
High-Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Protection for Aircraft
Electrical and Electronic Systems
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends FAA regulations by adding airworthiness
certification standards to protect aircraft electrical and electronic
systems from high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF). This action is
necessary due to the vulnerability of aircraft electrical and
electronic systems and the increasing use of high-power radio frequency
transmitters. This action is intended to create a safer operating
environment for civil aviation by protecting aircraft and their systems
from the adverse effects of HIRF.
DATES: These amendments become effective September 5, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard E. Jennings, Aircraft
Certification Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, AIR-130, Federal
Aviation Administration, 470 L'Enfant Plaza, Suite 4102, Washington, DC
20024; telephone (202) 385-4562; e-mail Richard.Jennings@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy of this final rule using the
Internet by:
(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket
Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search); (2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
.
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a
question regarding this document, you may contact a local FAA official
or the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can
find out more about SBREFA on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/
.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701(a)(1). Under that
section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to promote
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum
standards in the interest of safety for appliances and for the design,
material, construction, quality of work, and performance of aircraft,
aircraft engines, and propellers. By prescribing standards to protect
aircraft electrical and electronic systems from high-intensity radiated
fields, this regulation is within the scope of the Administrator's
authority.
I. Background
The electromagnetic HIRF environment results from the transmission
of electromagnetic energy from radar, radio, television, and other
ground-based, shipborne, or airborne radio frequency (RF) transmitters.
This environment has the capability of adversely affecting the
operation of aircraft electrical and electronic systems.
Although the HIRF environment did not pose a significant threat to
earlier generations of aircraft, in the late 1970s designs for civil
aircraft were first proposed that included flight-critical electronic
controls, electronic displays, and electronic engine controls, such as
those used in military aircraft. These systems are more susceptible to
the adverse effects of operation in the HIRF environment. Accidents and
incidents involving civil aircraft with flight-critical electrical and
electronic systems have also brought attention to the need to protect
these critical systems from high-intensity radiated fields.
Further, the need to protect these systems in aircraft has
increased substantially in recent years because of--
(1) A greater dependence on electrical and electronic systems
performing functions required for the continued safe flight and landing
of aircraft;
(2) The reduced electromagnetic shielding afforded by some
composite materials used in aircraft designs;
(3) The increase in susceptibility of electrical and electronic
systems to HIRF because of increased data bus or processor operating
speeds, higher density integrated circuits and cards, and greater
sensitivities of electronic equipment;
(4) Expanded frequency usage, especially above 1 gigahertz (GHz);
(5) The increased severity of the HIRF environment due to an
increase in the number and power of RF transmitters; and
(6) The adverse effects experienced by some aircraft when exposed
to HIRF.
Recognizing the need to address the vulnerability of aircraft
electrical and electronic systems to HIRF, the FAA published a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on February 1, 2006 (71 FR 5553). The
NPRM includes a description of the HIRF-related incidents that provided
some of the impetus for this rulemaking. It also includes a description
of the collaborative efforts the FAA undertook in developing these rule
changes. We encourage interested readers to refer to the NPRM for
additional information.
The comment period for the NPRM closed on May 2, 2006. We received
thirty comments from twelve commenters. The commenters include two
aviation industry associations, two avionics equipment manufacturers,
one engine manufacturer, two airplane manufacturers and five individual
commenters.
II. Discussion of the Rule
This final rule amends the airworthiness standards for normal,
utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes certificated under
part 23; transport category airplanes certificated under part 25;
normal category rotorcraft certificated under part 27; and transport
category rotorcraft certificated under part 29. Under the rule,
applicants for certification of aircraft under these parts are required
to demonstrate that any electrical and electronic system that performs
a function whose failure would prevent the continued safe flight and
landing of the aircraft must be designed and installed so that--
(1) Each function is not adversely affected during and after the
time the aircraft is exposed to a specifically
[[Page 44017]]
designated HIRF environment (HIRF environment I);
(2) Each electrical and electronic system automatically recovers
normal operation of that function, in a timely manner, after the
aircraft is exposed to HIRF environment I, unless this conflicts with
other operational or functional requirements of that system; and
(3) Each electrical and electronic system is not adversely affected
during and after the aircraft is exposed to a less severe, but more
commonly encountered HIRF environment (HIRF environment II).
HIRF environment I sets forth test and analysis levels that are
used to demonstrate that an aircraft and its systems meet basic HIRF
certification requirements. HIRF environment I represents the range of
electromagnetic field strengths that an aircraft could encounter during
its operational life. HIRF environment II is an estimate of the
electromagnetic field strengths more likely to be encountered in the
airspace above an airport or heliport at which routine departure and
arrival operations take place.
The rule also contains specific provisions for rotorcraft that
differ from those applicable to airplanes. The rule requires rotorcraft
to meet additional HIRF certification standards because rotorcraft
operating under visual flight rules (VFR) do not have to comply with
the same minimum safe altitude restrictions for airplanes specified in
Sec. 91.119 and, therefore, may operate closer to RF transmitters.
Accordingly, any electrical and electronic system that performs a
function required during operation under VFR and whose failure would
prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the rotorcraft must be
designed and installed so that the function is not adversely affected
during and after the time the rotorcraft is exposed to a specified HIRF
environment unique to rotorcraft (HIRF environment III).
HIRF environment III presents worst-case estimates of the
electromagnetic field strength in the airspace in which VFR rotorcraft
operations are permitted. Rotorcraft operating under instrument flight
rules (IFR), however, normally have to comply with more restrictive
altitude limitations and, therefore, electrical and electronic systems
with functions required for IFR operations must not be adversely
affected when the rotorcraft is exposed to HIRF environments I and II.
This final rule also establishes equipment HIRF test levels for
electrical and electronic systems. It requires each electrical and
electronic system that performs a function whose failure would
significantly reduce the capability of the aircraft or the ability of
the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition to be
designed and installed such that it is not affected adversely when the
equipment providing the function is exposed to equipment HIRF test
level 1 or 2. HIRF test level 1 allows an applicant to use an industry
standard test method for compliance. HIRF test level 2 allows an
applicant to use equipment test levels developed for the specific
aircraft being certificated. Either of these test levels may be used to
demonstrate HIRF protection.
Additionally, the final rule requires each electrical and
electronic system that performs a function whose failure would reduce
(but not significantly) the capability of the aircraft or the ability
of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition to be
designed and installed such that it is not affected adversely when the
equipment providing these functions is exposed to equipment HIRF test
level 3. HIRF test level 3, like HIRF test level 1, allows an applicant
to use an industry standard test method for compliance that is not as
rigorous as that specified by HIRF test levels 1 or 2. HIRF
environments I, II, and III, and equipment HIRF test levels 1, 2, and 3
are found in the appendices to the parts revised by this rule.
The rule also includes provisions that provide relief from the new
testing requirements for equipment previously certificated under HIRF
special conditions issued in accordance with Sec. 21.16. These
provisions permit the installation of an electrical or electronic
system that performs a function whose failure would prevent the
continued safe flight and landing of the aircraft, if an applicant can
show that the system continues to comply with previously issued HIRF
special conditions. This relief, however, will only be available for a
five-year period and will only apply to equipment certificated under
HIRF special conditions issued before December 1, 2007. To obtain this
relief an applicant must be able to--
(1) Provide evidence that the system was the subject of HIRF
special conditions issued before December 1, 2007;
(2) Show that there have been no system design changes that would
invalidate the HIRF immunity characteristics originally demonstrated
under the previously issued HIRF special conditions; and
(3) Provide the data used to demonstrate compliance with the HIRF
special conditions under which the system was previously approved.
Reference Material
For further information on the development of the HIRF
environments, consult the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division
(NAWCAD) Technical Memorandum, Report No. NAWCADPAX-98-156-TM, High-
intensity Radiated Field External Environments for Civil Aircraft
Operating in the United States of America (Unclassified), dated
November 12, 1998. A copy of the NAWCAD Technical Memorandum is
available in the docket for this final rule.
Related Activity
When we published the HIRF NPRM on February 1, 2006, we also
announced the availability of a draft Advisory Circular (describing a
method for applicants to comply with the proposed HIRF standards (71 FR
5570). We have revised the draft AC based on the comments we received.
You can get copies of the final AC 20-158, ``The Certification of
Aircraft Electrical and Electronic Systems for Operation in the High
Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Environment'', from the FAA's
Regulatory and Guidance Library (RGL) at the Web site: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/rgl.
On the RGL Web site, click on ``Advisory
Circulars.''
A. Revision of Proposed HIRF Test Levels
1. Deletion of Proposed HIRF Test Level 1
In the NPRM, we proposed to include four specific equipment HIRF
test levels for electrical and electronic systems. Each electrical and
electronic system that performs a function whose failure would
significantly reduce the capability of the aircraft or the ability of
the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition was
required to be designed and installed so the system is not adversely
affected when the equipment providing those functions is exposed to
equipment HIRF test levels 1, 2, or 3. Additionally, we proposed that
equipment be exposed to HIRF test level 4 for those functions that
would cause any reduction in the capability of the aircraft or the
ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition.
RTCA, Inc. Special Committee 135, which develops HIRF test
procedures for aircraft equipment, recommended deleting one of the
proposed equipment HIRF test levels included in the appendices to the
proposed regulations. Comments from Boeing, GAMA, and an individual
commenter also supported this change.
[[Page 44018]]
The commenters noted that proposed Sec. 23.1308(b) would require
each electrical and electronic system that performs a function whose
failure would significantly reduce the capability of the airplane or
the ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating
condition to be designed and installed so the system is not adversely
affected when the equipment providing the function is exposed to
equipment HIRF test level 1, 2, or 3. Proposed Sec. Sec. 25.1317(b),
27.1317(b), and 29.1317(b) also contained corresponding provisions.
The commenters noted that the amplitudes and modulations defined in
equipment HIRF test levels 1 and 2 were similar, but not identical.
HIRF test level 1 specified the use of a pulse modulated waveform with
150 volts per meter (V/m) amplitude and 0.1 percent duty cycle, along
with a square wave modulated waveform with 28 V/m amplitude and 50
percent duty cycle, for frequencies from 400 megahertz (MHz) to 8GHz.
Test level 2 used a pulse modulated waveform 150 V/m amplitude and 4
percent duty cycle, but no square wave modulated waveform in the same
frequency range. The commenters also noted that compliance with
proposed Sec. 23.1308(b) and corresponding provisions would be more
consistent if only one of the two definitions of test amplitude and
modulation were included in the regulations. RTCA, Inc. Special
Committee 135 also noted that eliminating one equipment test level
would help standardize equipment tests and minimize confusion in
selecting the appropriate equipment test level. Both RTCA and an
individual commenter recommend that this single test level conform to
the proposed requirements in equipment HIRF test level 2.
The FAA agrees with these comments and has eliminated proposed
equipment HIRF test level 1 from the appendices to parts 23, 25, 27,
and 29. We have renumbered the remaining test levels accordingly in the
final rule. Equipment HIRF test levels 2, 3, and 4 in the proposed rule
have therefore become test levels 1, 2, and 3, respectively, in the
final rule. We have also revised Sec. Sec. 23.1308(b), 25.1317(b),
27.1317(b), and 29.1317(b) to refer to equipment HIRF test levels 1 and
2. Additionally, we have revised Sec. Sec. 23.1308(c), 25.1317(c),
27.1317(c), and 29.1317(c) to refer to equipment HIRF test level 3.
Equipment HIRF test levels are specified in paragraphs (c), (d), and
(e) of Appendix J to Part 23; paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of Appendix
L to Part 25; paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of Appendix D to Part 27;
and paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of Appendix E to Part 29.
2. Revision of Conducted Current Susceptibility Test Requirements
RTCA, Inc. Special Committee 135 also recommended changes to the
conducted current susceptibility test requirements in proposed
equipment HIRF test levels 1, 2, and 4. These equipment HIRF test
requirements define the amplitude and modulation of radio frequency
current that equipment and its wiring must be exposed to in a
laboratory to demonstrate that equipment is immune to HIRF.
RTCA, Inc. Special Committee 135 stated that it has worked with the
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) Electromagnetic Effects
Harmonization Working Group (EEHWG) to define equipment HIRF test
requirements. The Special Committee stated that the changes it proposes
would modify conducted radio frequency current amplitude to make the
conducted radio frequency current decrease linearly with frequency so
that the radio frequency current at 400 MHz would be one tenth the
current at 30 MHz. The Special Committee asserted that this change
would make the test levels more consistent with values measured on
aircraft. HIRF tests on aircraft show that the conducted radio
frequency current decreases above a certain frequency, and that this
frequency depends on the size of the aircraft.
The FAA generally agrees with RTCA's comment, however, data used to
develop the HIRF AC shows the current decreases logarithmically with
frequency. Therefore, the FAA has changed the conducted current
amplitude in proposed equipment HIRF test levels 2 and 4 (test levels 1
and 3 in the final rule) so that the conducted current decreases at 20
decibel (dB) per frequency decade starting at 40 MHz and continuing to
400 MHz. This change results in a current at 400 MHz that is one tenth
the current at 40 MHz and simplifies the procedures necessary to show
compliance with equipment HIRF test levels. Since the FAA is not
adopting proposed HIRF test level 1 (as discussed earlier in this
preamble), no additional changes have been made to the final rule in
response to this comment.
B. Effect of the Rule on Systems That Have Demonstrated Compliance With
Previously Issued HIRF Special Conditions
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that the HIRF certification
requirements would apply to all electrical and electronic systems
designed and installed in an aircraft for which the new rules
constitute part of its certification basis. In their comments, the
General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and Rockwell Collins
expressed general support for the rule yet stated that a number of
systems have been installed on aircraft that have demonstrated
compliance with HIRF special conditions issued pursuant to Sec. 21.16.
The commenters assert that when application is made for certification
of equipment in an aircraft and that same equipment has already been
found to be in compliance with HIRF special conditions issued for
another aircraft, the test requirements set forth in the proposal would
impose significant costs with little additional safety benefit. Another
commenter, Meggitt/S-TEC, expressed similar concerns.
The commenters recommend that systems previously installed on an
aircraft should be considered compliant with the HIRF protection
requirements of the rule if those systems have been found to meet
existing HIRF special conditions when installed on another aircraft.
The FAA agrees that there are a number of systems installed under
HIRF special conditions that have a proven service history and that
compliance with the rule, as originally proposed, would require
additional testing and costs. In an effort to address this concern, the
FAA has revised the rule to permit the installation of an electrical or
electronic system that performs a function whose failure would prevent
the continued safe flight and landing of the aircraft, if it can be
shown that the system to be installed continues to comply with HIRF
special conditions issued before December 1, 2007. This relief is
contained in paragraph (d) of each section of the rule and is limited
to a five-year period.
To utilize this relief from the general requirements of the rule,
an applicant must: (1) Provide evidence that the system was the subject
of previously issued HIRF special conditions; (2) show that there have
been no system design changes that would invalidate the HIRF immunity
characteristics originally demonstrated under the previously issued
HIRF special conditions; and (3) provide the data used to demonstrate
compliance with the HIRF special conditions under which the system was
previously approved.
Upon issuance of this rule, the FAA does not foresee the need to
issue special conditions, like those previously issued for HIRF, to
include special
[[Page 44019]]
conditions permitting equipment evaluations in a laboratory environment
using test levels of 100 V/m (200 V/m for VFR rotorcraft). Therefore,
if an installation cannot meet the requirements of paragraph (d), the
installation will need to comply with the HIRF certification
requirements specified in paragraph (a).
Paragraph (d)(1) requires an applicant to provide objective
evidence that the system was the subject of HIRF special conditions
that were issued before December 1, 2007. In meeting subparagraph
(d)(1), it is not essential that the HIRF special conditions be issued
for the same make and model of aircraft, but only that they were used
as the basis for showing HIRF compliance for the electrical or
electronic system intended for the specific installation. After the
rule becomes effective, the FAA generally will no longer use special
conditions as a means for an applicant to show protection from the HIRF
environment for new equipment installation certifications. The date
specified in paragraph (d)(1), however, provides a sufficient time
period beyond the effective date of the rule to allow applicants to use
HIRF special conditions that are currently being developed as part of a
new installation's certification basis to be processed and issued.
Paragraph (d)(2) requires the applicant to show that there have
been no system design changes that would invalidate the HIRF immunity
characteristics originally demonstrated under previously issued HIRF
special conditions. If a change has been made to the system, and the
change cannot be substantiated through analysis as having no impact on
the previously demonstrated HIRF immunity characteristics, the system
must comply with the general requirements of the rule as specified in
paragraph (a) of each section.
Paragraph (d)(3) requires the applicant to provide the data used to
demonstrate compliance with HIRF special conditions. The term ``data''
includes, but is not limited to, items such as the HIRF certification/
qualification test report used to demonstrate compliance; installation
instructions, as appropriate, to support HIRF immunity of the system;
and instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) to maintain the
integrity of the system's demonstrated HIRF immunity. To assist
prospective applicants, Appendix 2 of AC 20-158 provides guidance on
one means, but not the only means, of complying with these provisions.
Although these revisions will affect aircraft intended for
certification under parts 23, 25, 27 and 29, the FAA believes that the
changes will primarily afford relief to persons installing equipment in
aircraft intended for certification under part 23. The FAA estimates
that as many as 30-35% of the applicants that apply for installation of
a Level A system in aircraft certificated under part 23 will be seeking
approval of equipment that has been shown to comply with previously
issued HIRF special conditions (a Level A system is a system that
performs a function whose failure would prevent the continued safe
flight and landing of an aircraft, such as a flight display system
certificated for IFR operations or a full authority digital engine
control (FADEC) system). Such systems have been shown to meet
appropriate certification standards and, based on comments received,
the FAA believes that the burden associated with re-testing this
equipment to the new certification standards is not justified by a
corresponding benefit.
In determining the extent of the relief that could be provided, the
FAA sought clarification of GAMA's earlier comment. GAMA noted that if
the FAA were to accept its comment to consider equipment previously
certified under HIRF special conditions as compliant with the proposed
HIRF requirements, it may not be feasible for the FAA to make such a
provision open-ended. GAMA stated that if the FAA were to establish a
specific time period during which such equipment would be considered
compliant, that determination should give full consideration to the
technological life of the product. The FAA concurs with this
recommendation. We have therefore provided applicants with a five-year
period during which equipment shown to comply with previously issued
HIRF special conditions will be considered to meet the requirements of
this rule. This decision was based on a number of factors.
Due to the dynamic and highly competitive nature of the current
avionics industry, new avionics models are being rapidly introduced
into the marketplace in response to public demand. As special
conditions for HIRF generally will no longer be issued after the
effective date of the rule, it will become increasingly difficult to
find new equipment in compliance with previously issued HIRF special
conditions. Equipment manufacturers will therefore not be able to take
advantage of the provisions of new paragraph (d), and the equipment
will have to meet the general requirements of the rule. The FAA also
believes that major design changes will, in most cases, necessitate
retesting of previously approved equipment in accordance with the
general provisions of the rule, again significantly decreasing the
number of systems that will be able to use the provisions of paragraph
(d) within a short period of time.
Additionally, avionics manufacturers now compete in a global
marketplace. Many foreign civil aviation authorities are adopting
airworthiness standards similar to those found in paragraphs (a), (b),
and (c) of each section added by the rule, but are not adopting
airworthiness standards which contain provisions similar to those
contained in paragraph (d) of those sections. Manufacturers intending
to market their equipment for installation on aircraft registered in
countries other than the United States will therefore need to ensure
compliance with the general provisions of the rule to export their
products.
Technological advances and the necessity for manufacturers to
comply with standards established by foreign aviation authorities to
globally market their products will require that newer systems comply
with the general test standards established by the final rule. The FAA
therefore believes that the relief permitted by the revision, while of
immediate benefit to manufactures, will neither be practical nor
warranted within five years after the effective date of the rule, and
has limited the relief to that period accordingly.
C. Applicability of HIRF Requirements
1. Applicability of HIRF Requirements to Aircraft Certificated Under
Part 23
Thielert Aircraft engines commented on the HIRF Risk Analysis
report used in the regulatory evaluation (DOT/FAA/AR-99/50). This risk
analysis forms the basis of the benefits analysis in the FAA's
regulatory evaluation. According to Thielert, a comparison of estimated
HIRF risks for transport category airplanes (table 9 of the report)
with estimated HIRF risks for non-transport category aircraft,
including Part 23 small airplanes (table 10 of the report), shows that
HIRF risks are higher for transport category airplanes. Thielert
therefore believes the proposed HIRF protection requirements for small
airplanes should not be the same as those proposed for transport
category airplanes. Additionally, Thielert believes that table 10 of
the report indicates the proposal provides a decreased level of safety
for airplanes certificated under Part 23.
The FAA does not agree with Thielert's contentions. The HIRF Risk
Analysis report shows that the HIRF
[[Page 44020]]
requirements provide a substantial HIRF risk reduction for both
transport category airplanes and non-transport category aircraft,
including small airplanes certificated under Part 23, even when
compared to existing HIRF special conditions (page 13 of the report).
The FAA agrees, however, that both tables 9 and 10 of the report
could be misconstrued. With regard to the data used to evaluate the
HIRF risk to transport category airplanes, a crucial component
affecting the risk analysis is the aircraft's position with respect to
an emitter's location. HIRF protection requirements are predicated on
various minimum (i.e., safe) distances between aircraft and emitters.
Inconsistencies in the values for transport category aircraft in table
9 noted by Thielert can be attributed to inaccuracies in recording
aircraft position data due to the normal variability inherent in radar
tracking. When the minimum distance assumptions on which the rule is
based are taken into account, only a few flights in the analysis were
exposed to field strengths that exceeded the rule's certification
levels. As these discrepancies are likely the result of the normal
variability inherent in determining an aircraft's position using radar,
there was no evidence that HIRF certification levels were exceeded for
flights involving transport category aircraft (in the Denver and
Seattle study areas).
The same positional inaccuracies are also the probable cause of the
inconsistent results in table 10 of the analysis that were noted by the
commenter. To account for this possible error, the FAA's benefits
analysis was conducted using data from table 11 of the report to obtain
the number of flights that exceeded the various protection (or
comparison) levels. Similar to the results of the analysis for
transport category aircraft, the risk analysis for part 23 aircraft
shows that the HIRF requirements provide a substantial risk reduction
compared to existing HIRF special conditions. The FAA's risk-avoidance
analysis for part 23 airplanes does, however, differ from that for part
25 airplanes in that it combines information from an actual HIRF
incident with the theoretical analysis of the Risk Analysis study. That
incident was the basis of the finding in the benefits analysis of
greater risk for part 23 airplanes.
The report also includes a detailed discussion of how to interpret
the information presented in tables 9 and 10. It clearly states that
the proposed HIRF requirements reduce the risk of HIRF-related
accidents by a factor of 3.5 compared to the existing HIRF special
conditions for non-transport category airplanes, which include small
airplanes certificated under Part 23 (page 16). Thus, the report
supports the benefits of the rule for non-transport category aircraft,
which includes small airplanes certificated under Part 23.
2. Applicability of the Requirements to Airplane-Level Functions
Boeing Commercial Airplanes requested a change to proposed Sec.
25.1317(a)(1). The proposed section stated ``Each electrical and
electronic system that performs a function whose failure would prevent
the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane must be designed
and installed so that the function is not adversely affected during and
after the time the airplane is exposed to HIRF environment I . * * *''
(Emphasis added). In the commenter's view, the phrase ``the function''
should be changed to ``the airplane-level function'' since only top-
level functions may be observable in multi-system integrated avionics
configurations where several systems can contribute to correct
operation of an airplane-level function.
The FAA disagrees with the comment. The wording of proposed Sec.
25.1317(a)(1) is consistent with the wording of existing Sec. 25.1316,
which governs system lightning protection. The FAA has taken a similar
approach in addressing protection from lightning and HIRF as both
constitute external environmental hazards to an aircraft. A failure of
a system as a result of lightning or HIRF would have an identical
effect on the operation of the aircraft, and the FAA believes that
their failure effects should therefore be treated similarly. For this
reason, we did not make the requested change to the final rule.
3. Limiting Sec. 25.1317(a)(2) and Corresponding Requirements to
Functions, Rather Than Systems Whose Failure Would Prevent Safe Flight
and Landing of the Aircraft
Boeing Commercial Airplanes requested clarification of proposed
Sec. 25.1317(a)(2) which states ``Each electrical and electronic
system that performs a function whose failure would prevent the
continued safe flight and landing of the airplane must be designed and
installed so that the system automatically recovers normal operation,
in a timely manner, after the airplane is exposed to HIRF environment I
* * *.'' (Emphasis added). The commenter requested clarification that
the expectation of automatic recovery of an electrical or electronic
system is limited to functions whose failure would prevent safe flight
and landing. Other functions may not be required to return to ``normal
operation,'' which is interpreted to mean the ability to perform
functions to the extent necessary to continue safe flight and landing,
not necessarily full functional performance and redundancy.
The FAA agrees with Boeing. The requested change clarifies the
rule's intent that an automatic recovery of an electrical or electronic
system be limited to those functions whose failure would prevent safe
flight and landing. We have therefore changed the wording of final
Sec. 25.1317(a)(2) to state that ``The system automatically recovers
normal operations of that function, in a timely manner. * * *''
(Emphasis added). We have also made corresponding changes to final
Sec. Sec. 23.1308(a)(2), 27.1317(a)(2), and 29.1317(a)(2).
4. Expanding the Scope of the HIRF Protection Requirements to Equipment
Whose Failure Does Not Have Safety Consequences
An individual commenter recommended that equipment required by FAA
certification or operating regulations should be subject to this
rulemaking even though failure of that equipment would not have safety
consequences.
The FAA does not agree with the commenter. The FAA's general
approach to system safety is to define requirements based on the hazard
consequences of system failures. This rulemaking follows the FAA's
longstanding system safety approach to aircraft design and defines
requirements based on their impact on overall aircraft safety. For
example, this approach is followed in 14 CFR 25.1309, which provides
general aircraft equipment, systems, and installation safety
requirements. The EEHWG, which developed the recommendations upon which
the NPRM is based, specifically recommended that the rule apply only to
systems with failure classifications that are major, hazardous, or
catastrophic. The FAA notes that this final rule does not preclude any
aircraft or avionics manufacturer or supplier from testing equipment
not subject to the rule for susceptibility to HIRF effects using the
standards contained in the rule.
D. Continued Airworthiness Requirements
One individual commenter expressed general support for the NPRM,
but was concerned that the cost of maintaining aircraft airworthiness
after aircraft
[[Page 44021]]
delivery should be considered in the regulatory evaluation for the
rulemaking.
The FAA agrees with the commenter. The regulatory evaluation
includes costs for both designing and installing HIRF protection, as
well as costs for maintaining this protection over the service life of
the aircraft. The EEHWG collected this cost data from aircraft and
avionics manufacturers and provided this information to the FAA for
inclusion in the regulatory evaluation. We believe the commenter's
concerns have been addressed in the rulemaking process.
E. Concerns Regarding the Ability of the HIRF Certification Standards
To Afford Adequate Protection of Aircraft
An individual commenter expressed general support for the proposal,
but had a concern about ``a flight that went down off Long Island a few
years back.'' The commenter questioned whether the proposed standards
will sufficiently protect aircraft. Two commenters urged the FAA to
include standards in this final rule to protect aircraft from an
electromagnetic pulse (EMP) generated by a nuclear weapon or some other
EMP-based disabling device.
We believe the first commenter is referring to the crash of TWA
Flight 800, which broke up in flight off Long Island, New York on July
17, 1996. The investigation of the accident was conducted by the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The NTSB in its Aircraft
Accident Report (NTSB/AAR-00/03) did not find that the probable cause
of the accident was related to HIRF effects. As discussed in the
notice, the FAA has worked extensively with aircraft and equipment
manufacturers, foreign civil aviation authorities and engineers who
have an extensive knowledge of the HIRF environment in its efforts to
develop the protection regulations for the HIRF environment found in
this rule. This rule is based to a significant degree upon their
detailed recommendations and for these reasons, the FAA believes that
the commenter's concern is not warranted.
In response to concerns regarding EMP protection, the FAA notes
that the EEHWG participants who assisted the agency in developing the
HIRF NPRM were familiar with issues related to EMP. The aircraft
protection requirements for lightning and HIRF provide some inherent
protection from EMP. However, EMP generated from a nuclear or other
device is not part of the normal HIRF environment. The FAA considers
protection of aircraft from the hazards of EMP generated by such
devices to be beyond the scope of this rulemaking effort.
F. Use of Similar HIRF Protection Requirements for Systems With Major
and Hazardous Failure Conditions
An individual commenter recommends that the HIRF requirements for
systems with major failure conditions should meet the same equipment
HIRF test levels as systems with hazardous failure conditions. The
commenter believes that this is the general practice of most aircraft
manufacturers and that such a requirement would provide additional
protection against the effects of portable electronic devices (PEDs)
that may transmit during flight. These PEDs include mobile phones and
two-way pagers.
The FAA agrees, in part, with the commenter. Radiated emissions
from PEDs on aircraft are a growing concern, and FAA has requested
RTCA, Inc., through Special Committee 202 to investigate PED emissions
(both intentional and unintentional emitters) and their possible impact
on required aircraft electronic systems. However, the hazards related
to radiated fields generated by PEDs are not considered part of the
external HIRF environment encountered by an aircraft, and consideration
of their effects is therefore beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Such
effects would have to be addressed by a separate rulemaking activity
when Special Committee 202 completes its assigned task. In addition,
the FAA has reviewed certification plans that indicate many
manufacturers do not require systems with major failure conditions to
meet the same equipment HIRF test levels as systems with hazardous
failure conditions. Therefore, we have not made any changes to this
final rule based on the comment.
G. Harmonization of HIRF Certification Standards
Thielert Aircraft Engines commented that the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) classified the consequence of a failure of their
reciprocating engine as major or hazardous, while the FAA has required
HIRF tests that assume the engine failures are catastrophic. Thielert
commented that this decision has not fulfilled the intent to harmonize
HIRF standards because the FAA requires more expensive HIRF tests on
Thielert's FADEC systems than EASA does. Thielert states that the FAA
HIRF compliance requirements are more expensive to comply with because
the engine and engine electronic controls must be tested when they are
installed on an airplane rather than prior to any installation. Based
on these concerns, Thielert proposed changes to Sec. 23.1308(a) that
would eliminate the need for the more expensive airplane tests.
The FAA does not agree with the changes proposed by Thielert. The
HIRF regulations neither define the specific failure classification for
particular aircraft systems nor establish requirements used to classify
any particular system. The failure classification must be established
by the certification applicant and agreed on by the FAA for the
specific aircraft and system being certified. Once a specific failure
classification has been established, the HIRF regulations set forth in
the final rule only specify those requirements that must be met for
that specific failure classification. In fact, EASA currently issues
HIRF Certification Review Items (CRI) (equivalent to the FAA's special
conditions) that use the same approach as that generally set forth in
the rule. The example provided by Thielert is not a consequence of the
proposed HIRF regulations, but rather a difference in classification of
failure severity.
Additionally, this final rule, with the exception of the provisions
contained in paragraph (d) of each section, is consistent with current
EASA practices. The FAA, however, does recognize that for an aircraft
to be exported it may not be acceptable to a foreign authority if a
system installed on the aircraft has been certificated in accordance
with the provisions of paragraph (d) of each section of the final rule.
H. Addition of Explanatory Note to HIRF Environment Tables
A note was added to each HIRF Environment table in the appendices
to this rule. The note states that, ``In this table, the higher field
strength applies at the frequency band edges.'' Although not included
in the proposal, this note was included in the draft AC that was the
subject of a Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register
(71 FR 5570) on February 1, 2006 concurrent with the notice for this
rule. During the public comment period of the draft AC, we received no
comments with regard to this note. The note was added to standardize
testing and to remove any ambiguity when applying field strength values
at frequency band edges.
III. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the
[[Page 44022]]
FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection
burdens imposed on the public. An agency may not collect or sponsor the
collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection
requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) control number. We have determined that there are no
new information collection requirements associated with this amendment.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these regulations.
Economic Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this final rule. We suggest readers seeking
greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we
have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on
state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized
below.
Who Is Affected by This Rulemaking
Manufacturers of transport category airplanes will incur no
incremental costs; manufacturers of transport category rotorcraft and
non-transport category aircraft will incur varying costs.
Occupants in, and operators of, affected aircraft receive safety
benefits.
Assumptions and Standard Values
Discount rate: 7%.
Period of analysis: Costs are based on a 10-year
production period and benefits are based on 25-year operating lives of
newly-certificated aircraft.
Value of statistical fatality avoided: $3 million.
Benefits/costs are evaluated from two perspectives: (1)
The `base case'--a comparison of the costs and benefits concomitant
with current industry practice to those associated with meeting the
rule's requirements, and (2) the `regulatory case'--a comparison of the
costs and benefits of complying with current U.S. special conditions to
those associated with meeting the rule. Current industry practice for
manufacturers of all airplanes certificated under part 25, for
manufacturers of the majority of aircraft certificated under parts 23
and 29, and for manufacturers of a sizeable minority of part 27
rotorcraft, is to comply with the European Aviation Safety Agency's
(i.e., EASA's, as noted earlier in this preamble) HIRF interim policy,
which, with the exception of the provisions of paragraph (d) of each
section, is equivalent to the rule. On the other hand, manufacturers of
the remaining aircraft (some aircraft certificated under parts 23 and
29 and most rotorcraft certificated under part 27) currently
manufacture their aircraft to meet U.S. special conditions, which are
not as stringent as the provisions in this final rule. These affected
aircraft manufacturers will experience additional costs under the rule.
The rule is assumed to be nearly 100 percent effective in
preventing HIRF-related accidents.
Alternatives Considered
Although earlier and current special condition levels of HIRF
protection were considered, EASA's HIRF interim policy (formerly Joint
Aviation Authorities (JAA) policy) was selected for this rule because
of both the proven high levels of protection demonstrated and the
potential cost savings associated with adoption of substantially
harmonized U.S. and European HIRF-requirements.
Costs and Benefits of the Rule
Costs
Estimated Present Value Costs
[$millions over a 10-year period]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Special
practice to conditions to
rule rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 23 certificated airplanes.......... $21.8 $72.8
Part 25 certificated airplanes.......... 0 308.1
Part 27 certificated rotorcraft......... 1.5 2.0
Part 29 certificated rotorcraft......... 5.3 26.6
-------------------------------
Total estimated costs............... 28.6 409.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 44023]]
In the first column (or, the base case, which reflects actual costs
to industry), there are no additional HIRF-protection costs for
manufacturers of airplanes certificated under part 25 and for
manufacturers of the majority of aircraft certificated under parts 23
and 29, since most U.S. large manufacturers have produced these
aircraft to comply with current EASA HIRF interim policy standards
(generally equivalent to the requirements in this final rule) to market
their aircraft in Europe. There are moderate incremental costs for
manufacturers of the remaining portion of aircraft certificated under
parts 23 and 29 and relatively lower costs for the majority of
rotorcraft certificated under part 27 that do not currently meet EASA's
HIRF interim policy standards either because (1) their aircraft do not
yet have complex electronic systems installed or (2) they have chosen
not to market their aircraft outside the United States. This ``current
practice to rule'' is the base perspective in this analysis. The total
estimated ten-year costs of $28.6 million (the sum of column one)
represent the true incremental impact on the industry.
However, most manufacturers of aircraft certificated under parts
23, 25, 27, and 29 believe that U.S. special conditions afford
sufficient protection from HIRF. Therefore, in the second column (or,
the regulatory case, ``special conditions to rule''), the FAA shows the
incremental compliance costs between the current U.S. special
conditions (essentially equivalent to industry's self-determined
protection) and the rule's more stringent requirements. These
regulatory costs equal $409.5 million, and represent the costs for more
robust HIRF protection that industry would not have voluntarily
incurred.
Benefits
Estimated benefits of this rule are the accidents, incidents, and
fatalities avoided as a result of increased protection from HIRF-
effects provided to electrical and electronic systems. Quantified
benefits are partly based on a study titled ``High-Intensity Radiated
Fields (HIRF) Risk Analysis,'' by EMA Electro Magnetic Applications,
Inc. of Denver, CO. (DOT/FAA/AR-99/50, July 1999). The complete study
is available in the docket for this rulemaking. Using the study's risk
analysis results for airplanes certificated under parts 23 and 25 and
FAA accident/incident data for rotorcraft certificated under parts 27
and 29, the FAA calculated the difference between the expected number
of accidents under the new standards versus those expected under
current U.S. special conditions.
Estimated Present Value Benefits
[$millions over a 34-year period]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Special
practice to conditions to
rule rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 23 certificated airplanes.......... $37.1 $123.5
Part 25 certificated airplanes.......... 0 3,683.9
Part 27 certificated rotorcraft......... 33.3 44.4
Part 29 certificated rotorcraft......... 17.7 88.6
-------------------------------
Total estimated benefits............ 88.1 3,940.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following FAA's rationale as stated in the cost section earlier,
column one (the base case) in the benefits table above shows
incremental benefits of $88.1 million resulting from averted accidents
in future compliant parts 23, 27, and 29 aircraft. Part 25 airplanes
already meet similar EASA standards, hence no additional benefits
attributable to part 25 airplanes accrue to society. Column two in the
table presents the regulatory case; it shows the additional benefits
associated with going from industry's self-determined protection
standards (or current special conditions) to the new HIRF standards.
Total regulatory incremental benefits equal $3,940.4 million and
represent the value of avoiding the following numbers of accidents over
the 34-year analysis period:
(1) Part 23 airplanes, 24 accidents; (2) part 25 airplanes, 22
accidents; (3) part 27 rotorcraft, 41 accidents, and (4) part 29
rotorcraft, 14 accidents. The FAA believes that, based on the
aforementioned risk assessment, the predicted accidents could occur
absent the new HIRF standards in this rule if manufacturers of all
airplanes certificated under part 25, manufacturers of the majority of
aircraft certificated under parts 23 and 29, and manufacturers of a
sizeable minority of part 27 rotorcraft, choose in the future not to
market their aircraft abroad and therefore no longer meet EASA's
enhanced HIRF requirements (but rather meet only current less stringent
U.S. special conditions).
Comments to the Docket on Costs and Benefits
Although there were no comments directly criticizing FAA's cost
estimates, GAMA, Rockwell Collins, and Meggitt/S-TEC were concerned
that companies which previously installed electrical systems in
aircraft pursuant to HIRF special conditions could experience
significant additional testing costs, with little additional safety
benefit, if those systems required re-certification before installation
on other aircraft. A comment from Thielert questioned the efficacy of
the risk analysis, which is the basis of the benefits analysis in FAA's
regulatory evaluation. Thielert believes the HIRF requirements for
small airplanes certificated under part 23 should not be the same as
those for transport category airplanes certificated under part 25. The
FAA's detailed response to these comments is discussed earlier in this
preamble and in the full regulatory evaluation (available in the docket
to this rulemaking). Although the FAA has revised the final rule in
response to the comments, the benefit and cost estimates remain the
same.
Summary of Costs and Benefits (at Present Value)
For a ten-year period, the incremental costs of meeting the new
requirements versus current industry practice equal $28.6 million and
the associated benefits are $88.1 million, for a benefit-to-cost ratio
of 3.1 to 1. Alternatively, the incremental costs of meeting the new
requirements versus current U.S. special conditions equal $409.5
million and the benefits are $3,940.4 million, for a benefit-to-cost
ratio of 9.6 to 1. From either perspective, this rule is clearly cost-
beneficial.
[[Page 44024]]
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rulemaking
action will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. If an agency determines that it will, the agency
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is not
expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of
the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
The FAA believes that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
following reasons:
As noted in the regulatory evaluation and preamble to the NPRM,
this rule will affect manufacturers of aircraft intended for
certification under parts 23, 25, 27, and 29. For manufacturers, the
RFA considers a small entity to be one with 1,500 or fewer employees.
None of the part 25 or part 29 manufacturers has 1,500 or fewer
employees; consequently, none is considered a small entity. There are,
however, currently about four part 27 (utility rotorcraft) and ten part
23 (small non-transport category airplanes) manufacturers, who have
fewer than 1,500 employees and are considered small entities.
Based on a sampling of the affected small manufacturers of parts 23
and 27 aircraft, the incremental costs are expected to represent
significantly less than one percent of the typical small manufacturer's
annual revenues; these compliance costs do not constitute a significant
economic impact. There were no comments to the docket disputing this
finding.
Therefore, as the FAA Administrator, I certify that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule
and determined that it is in accord with the Trade Agreements Act in
that it uses European standards as the basis for United States
regulation.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation since the base year 1995) in any one
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value
of $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not
contain such a mandate. The requirements of Title II do not apply.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and therefore does not have federalism implications.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 308(c)(1) and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001). We have determined
that it is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive
order because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 23
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Certification,
Safety.
14 CFR Part 25
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Certification,
Safety.
14 CFR Part 27
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Certification,
Rotorcraft, Safety.
14 CFR Part 29
Air transportation Aircraft, Aviation safety Certification,
Rotorcraft, Safety.
The Amendment
0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 23--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND
COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES
0
1. The authority citation for part 23 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, and
44704.
0
2. Add Sec. 23.1308 to subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 23.1308 High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Protection.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each
electrical and electronic system that performs a function whose failure
would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane
must be designed and installed so that--
(1) The function is not adversely affected during and after the
time the airplane is exposed to HIRF environment I, as described in
appendix J to this part;
[[Page 44025]]
(2) The system automatically recovers normal operation of that
function, in a timely manner, after the airplane is exposed to HIRF
environment I, as described in appendix J to this part, unless the
system's recovery conflicts with other operational or functional
requirements of the system; and
(3) The system is not adversely affected during and after the time
the airplane is exposed to HIRF environment II, as described in
appendix J to this part.
(b) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function
whose failure would significantly reduce the capability of the airplane
or the ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating
condition must be designed and installed so the system is not adversely
affected when the equipment providing the function is exposed to
equipment HIRF test level 1 or 2, as described in appendix J to this
part.
(c) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function
whose failure would reduce the capability of the airplane or the
ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition
must be designed and installed so the system is not adversely affected
when the equipment providing the function is exposed to equipment HIRF
test level 3, as described in appendix J to this part.
(d) Before December 1, 2012, an electrical or electronic system
that performs a function whose failure would prevent the continued safe
flight and landing of an airplane may be designed and installed without
meeting the provisions of paragraph (a) provided--
(1) The system has previously been shown to comply with special
conditions for HIRF, prescribed under Sec. 21.16, issued before
December 1, 2007;
(2) The HIRF immunity characteristics of the system have not
changed since compliance with the special conditions was demonstrated;
and
(3) The data used to demonstrate compliance with the special
conditions is provided.
0
3. Add appendix J to part 23 to read as follows:
Appendix J to Part 23--HIRF Environments and Equipment HIRF Test Levels
This appendix specifies the HIRF environments and equipment HIRF
test levels for electrical and electronic systems under Sec.
23.1308. The field strength values for the HIRF environments and
equipment HIRF test levels are expressed in root-mean-square units
measured during the peak of the modulation cycle.
(a) HIRF environment I is specified in the following table:
Table I.--HIRF Environment I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field strength
(volts/meter)
Frequency ---------------------
Peak Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 kHz-2 MHz...................................... 50 50
2 MHz-30 MHz...................................... 100 100
30 MHz-100 MHz.................................... 50 50
100 MHz-400 MHz................................... 100 100
400 MHz-700 MHz................................... 700 50
700 MHz-1 GHz..................................... 700 100
GHz-2 GHz......................................... 2,000 200
2 GHz-6 GHz....................................... 3,000 200
6 GHz-8 GHz....................................... 1,000 200
8 GHz-12 GHz...................................... 3,000 300
12 GHz-18 GHz..................................... 2,000 200
18 GHz-40 GHz..................................... 600 200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this table, the higher field strength applies at the frequency band
edges.
(b) HIRF environment II is specified in the following table:
Table II.-HIRF Environment II
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field strength
(volts/meter)
Frequency ---------------------
Peak Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 kHz-500 kHz.................................... 20 20
500 kHz-2 MHz..................................... 30 30
2 MHz-30 MHz...................................... 100 100
30 MHz-100 MHz.................................... 10 10
100 MHz-200 MHz................................... 30 10
200 MHz-400 MHz................................... 10 10
400 MHz-1 GHz..................................... 700 40
1 GHz-2 GHz....................................... 1,300 160
2 GHz-4 GHz....................................... 3,000 120
4 GHz-6 GHz....................................... 3,000 160
6 GHz-8 GHz....................................... 400 170
8 GHz-12 GHz...................................... 1,230 230
12 GHz-18 GHz..................................... 730 190
18 GHz-40 GHz..................................... 600 150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this table, the higher field strength applies at the frequency band
edges.
(c) Equipment HIRF Test Level 1.
(1) From 10 kilohertz (kHz) to 400 megahertz (MHz), use
conducted susceptibility tests with continuous wave (CW) and 1 kHz
square wave modulation with 90 percent depth or greater. The
conducted susceptibility current must start at a minimum of 0.6
milliamperes (mA) at 10 kHz, increasing 20 decibels (dB) per
frequency decade to a minimum of 30 mA at 500 kHz.
(2) From 500 kHz to 40 MHz, the conducted susceptibility current
must be at least 30 mA.
(3) From 40 MHz to 400 MHz, use conducted susceptibility tests,
starting at a minimum of 30 mA at 40 MHz, decreasing 20 dB per
frequency decade to a minimum of 3 mA at 400 MHz.
(4) From 100 MHz to 400 MHz, use radiated susceptibility tests
at a minimum of 20 volts per meter (V/m) peak with CW and 1 kHz
square wave modulation with 90 percent depth or greater.
(5) From 400 MHz to 8 gigahertz (GHz), use radiated
susceptibility tests at a minimum of 150 V/m peak with pulse
modulation of 4 percent duty cycle with a 1 kHz pulse repetition
frequency. This signal must be switched on and off at a rate of 1 Hz
with a duty cycle of 50 percent.
(d) Equipment HIRF Test Level 2. Equipment HIRF test level 2 is
HIRF environment II in table II of this appendix reduced by
acceptable aircraft transfer function and attenuation curves.
Testing must cover the frequency band of 10 kHz to 8 GHz.
(e) Equipment HIRF Test Level 3.
(1) From 10 kHz to 400 MHz, use conducted susceptibility tests,
starting at a minimum of 0.15 mA at 10 kHz, increasing 20 dB per
frequency decade to a minimum of 7.5 mA at 500 kHz.
(2) From 500 kHz to 40 MHz, use conducted susceptibility tests
at a minimum of 7.5 mA.
(3) From 40 MHz to 400 MHz, use conducted susceptibility tests,
starting at a minimum of 7.5 mA at 40 MHz, decreasing 20 dB per
frequency decade to a minimum of 0.75 mA at 400 MHz.
(4) From 100 MHz to 8 GHz, use radiated susceptibility tests at
a minimum of 5 V/m.
PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES
0
4. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702,
44704.
0
5. Add Sec. 25.1317 to subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 25.1317 High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Protection.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each
electrical and electronic system that performs a function whose failure
would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane
must be designed and installed so that--
(1) The function is not adversely affected during and after the
time the airplane is exposed to HIRF environment I, as described in
appendix L to this part;
(2) The system automatically recovers normal operation of that
function, in a timely manner, after the airplane is exposed to HIRF
environment I, as described in appendix L to this part, unless the
system's recovery conflicts with other operational or functional
requirements of the system; and
(3) The system is not adversely affected during and after the time
the airplane is exposed to HIRF environment II, as described in
appendix L to this part.
(b) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function
whose failure would significantly reduce the
[[Page 44026]]
capability of the airplane or the ability of the flightcrew to respond
to an adverse operating condition must be designed and installed so the
system is not adversely affected when the equipment providing these
functions is exposed to equipment HIRF test level 1 or 2, as described
in appendix L to this part.
(c) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function
whose failure would reduce the capability of the airplane or the
ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition
must be designed and installed so the system is not adversely affected
when the equipment providing the function is exposed to equipment HIRF
test level 3, as described in appendix L to this part.
(d) Before December 1, 2012, an electrical or electronic system
that performs a function whose failure would prevent the continued safe
flight and landing of an airplane may be designed and installed without
meeting the provisions of paragraph (a) provided--
(1) The system has previously been shown to comply with special
conditions for HIRF, prescribed under Sec. 21.16, issued before
December 1, 2007;
(2) The HIRF immunity characteristics of the system have not
changed since compliance with the special conditions was demonstrated;
and
(3) The data used to demonstrate compliance with the special
conditions is provided.
0
6. Add appendix L to part 25 to read as follows:
Appendix L to Part 25--HIRF Environments and Equipment HIRF Test Levels
This appendix specifies the HIRF environments and equipment HIRF
test levels for electrical and electronic systems under Sec.
25.1317. The field strength values for the HIRF environments and
equipment HIRF test levels are expressed in root-mean-square units
measured during the peak of the modulation cycle.
(a) HIRF environment I is specified in the following table:
Table I.--HIRF Environment I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field strength
(volts/meter)
Frequency ---------------------
Peak Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 kHz-2 MHz...................................... 50 50
2 MHz-30 MHz...................................... 100 100
30 MHz-100 MHz.................................... 50 50
100 MHz-400 MHz................................... 100 100
400 MHz-700 MHz................................... 700 50
700 MHz-1 GHz..................................... 700 100
1 GHz-2 GHz....................................... 2,000 200
2 GHz-6 GHz....................................... 3,000 200
6 GHz-8 GHz....................................... 1,000 200
8 GHz-12 GHz...................................... 3,000 300
12 GHz-18 GHz..................................... 2,000 200
18 GHz-40 GHz..................................... 600 200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this table, the higher field strength applies at the frequency band
edges.
(b) HIRF environment II is specified in the following table:
Table II.-HIRF Environment II
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field strength
(volts/meter)
Frequency ---------------------
Peak Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 kHz-500 kHz.................................... 20 20
500 kHz-2 MHz..................................... 30 30
2 MHz-30 MHz...................................... 100 100
30 MHz-100 MHz.................................... 10 10
100 MHz-200 MHz................................... 30 10
200 MHz-400 MHz................................... 10 10
400 MHz-1 GHz..................................... 700 40
1 GHz-2 GHz....................................... 1,300 160
2 GHz-4 GHz....................................... 3,000 120
4 GHz-6 GHz....................................... 3,000 160
6 GHz-8 GHz....................................... 400 170
8 GHz-12 GHz...................................... 1,230 230
12 GHz-18 GHz..................................... 730 190
18 GHz-40 GHz..................................... 600 150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this table, the higher field strength applies at the frequency band
edges.
(c) Equipment HIRF Test Level 1.
(1) From 10 kilohertz (kHz) to 400 megahertz (MHz), use
conducted susceptibility tests with continuous wave (CW) and 1 kHz
square wave modulation with 90 percent depth or greater. The
conducted susceptibility current must start at a minimum of 0.6
milliamperes (mA) at 10 kHz, increasing 20 decibels (dB) per
frequency decade to a minimum of 30 mA at 500 kHz.
(2) From 500 kHz to 40 MHz, the conducted susceptibility current
must be at least 30 mA.
(3) From 40 MHz to 400 MHz, use conducted susceptibility tests,
starting at a minimum of 30 mA at 40 MHz, decreasing 20 dB per
frequency decade to a minimum of 3 mA at 400 MHz.
(4) From 100 MHz to 400 MHz, use radiated susceptibility tests
at a minimum of 20 volts per meter (V/m) peak with CW and 1 kHz
square wave modulation with 90 percent depth or greater.
(5) From 400 MHz to 8 gigahertz (GHz), use radiated
susceptibility tests at a minimum of 150 V/m peak with pulse
modulation of 4 percent duty cycle with a 1 kHz pulse repetition
frequency. This signal must be switched on and off at a rate of 1 Hz
with a duty cycle of 50 percent.
(d) Equipment HIRF Test Level 2. Equipment HIRF test level 2 is
HIRF environment II in table II of this appendix reduced by
acceptable aircraft transfer function and attenuation curves.
Testing must cover the frequency band of 10 kHz to 8 GHz.
(e) Equipment HIRF Test Level 3.
(1) From 10 kHz to 400 MHz, use conducted susceptibility tests,
starting at a minimum of 0.15 mA at 10 kHz, increasing 20 dB per
frequency decade to a minimum of 7.5 mA at 500 kHz.
(2) From 500 kHz to 40 MHz, use conducted susceptibility tests
at a minimum of 7.5 mA.
(3) From 40 MHz to 400 MHz, use conducted susceptibility tests,
starting at a minimum of 7.5 mA at 40 MHz, decreasing 20 dB per
frequency decade to a minimum of 0.75 mA at 400 MHz.
(4) From 100 MHz to 8 GHz, use radiated susceptibility tests at
a minimum of 5 V/m.
PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
0
7. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702,
44704.
0
8. Add Sec. 27.1317 to subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1317 High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Protection.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each
electrical and electronic system that performs a function whose failure
would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the rotorcraft
must be designed and installed so that--
(1) The function is not adversely affected during and after the
time the rotorcraft is exposed to HIRF environment I, as described in
appendix D to this part;
(2) The system automatically recovers normal operation of that
function, in a timely manner, after the rotorcraft is exposed to HIRF
environment I, as described in appendix D to this part, unless this
conflicts with other operational or functional requirements of that
system;
(3) The system is not adversely affected during and after the time
the rotorcraft is exposed to HIRF environment II, as described in
appendix D to this part; and
(4) Each function required during operation under visual flight
rules is not adversely affected during and after the time the
rotorcraft is exposed to HIRF environment III, as described in appendix
D to this part.
(b) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function
whose failure would significantly reduce the capability of the
rotorcraft or the ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse
operating condition must be
[[Page 44027]]
designed and installed so the system is not adversely affected when the
equipment providing these functions is exposed to equipment HIRF test
level 1 or 2, as described in appendix D to this part.
(c) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function
whose failure would reduce the capability of the rotorcraft or the
ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition,
must be designed and installed so the system is not adversely affected
when the equipment providing these functions is exposed to equipment
HIRF test level 3, as described in appendix D to this part.
(d) Before December 1, 2012, an electrical or electronic system
that performs a function whose failure would prevent the continued safe
flight and landing of a rotorcraft may be designed and installed
without meeting the provisions of paragraph (a) provided--
(1) The system has previously been shown to comply with special
conditions for HIRF, prescribed under Sec. 21.16, issued before
December 1, 2007;
(2) The HIRF immunity characteristics of the system have not
changed since compliance with the special conditions was demonstrated;
and
(3) The data used to demonstrate compliance with the special
conditions is provided.
0
9. Add appendix D to part 27 to read as follows:
Appendix D to Part 27--HIRF Environments and Equipment HIRF Test Levels
This appendix specifies the HIRF environments and equipment HIRF
test levels for electrical and electronic systems under Sec.
27.1317. The field strength values for the HIRF environments and
laboratory equipment HIRF test levels are expressed in root-mean-
square units measured during the peak of the modulation cycle.
(a) HIRF environment I is specified in the following table:
Table I.--HIRF Environment I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field strength
(volts/meter)
Frequency ---------------------
Peak Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 kHz-2 MHz...................................... 50 50
2 MHz-30 MHz...................................... 100 100
30 MHz-100 MHz.................................... 50 50
100 MHz-400 MHz................................... 100 100
400 MHz-700 MHz................................... 700 50
700 MHz-1 GHz..................................... 700 100
1 GHz-2 GHz....................................... 2,000 200
2 GHz-6 GHz....................................... 3,000 200
6 GHz-8 GHz....................................... 1,000 200
8 GHz-12 GHz...................................... 3,000 300
12 GHz-18 GHz..................................... 2,000 200
18 GHz-40 GHz..................................... 600 200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this table, the higher field strength applies at the frequency band
edges.
(b) HIRF environment II is specified in the following table:
Table II.--HIRF Environment II
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field strength
(volts/meter)
Frequency ---------------------
Peak Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 kHz-500 kHz.................................... 20 20
500 kHz-2 MHz..................................... 30 30
2 MHz-30 MHz...................................... 100 100
30 MHz-100 MHz.................................... 10 10
100 MHz-200 MHz................................... 30 10
200 MHz-400 MHz................................... 10 10
400 MHz-1 GHz..................................... 700 40
1 GHz-2 GHz....................................... 1,300 160
2 GHz-4 GHz....................................... 3,000 120
4 GHz-6 GHz....................................... 3,000 160
6 GHz-8 GHz....................................... 400 170
8 GHz-12 GHz...................................... 1,230 230
12 GHz-18 GHz..................................... 730 190
18 GHz-40 GHz..................................... 600 150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this table, the higher field strength applies at the frequency band
edges.
(c) HIRF environment III is specified in the following table:
Table III.--HIRF Environment III
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field strength
(volts/meter)
Frequency ---------------------
Peak Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 kHz-100 kHz.................................... 150 150
100 kHz-400 MHz................................... 200 200
400 MHz-700 MHz................................... 730 200
700 MHz-1 GHz..................................... 1,400 240
1 GHz-2 GHz....................................... 5,000 250
2 GHz-4 GHz....................................... 6,000 490
4 GHz-6 GHz....................................... 7,200 400
6 GHz-8 GHz....................................... 1,100 170
8 GHz-12 GHz...................................... 5,000 330
12 GHz-18 GHz..................................... 2,000 330
18 GHz-40 GHz..................................... 1,000 420
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this table, the higher field strength applies at the frequency band
edges.
(d) Equipment HIRF Test Level 1.
(1) From 10 kilohertz (kHz) to 400 megahertz (MHz), use
conducted susceptibility tests with continuous wave (CW) and 1 kHz
square wave modulation with 90 percent depth or greater. The
conducted susceptibility current must start at a minimum of 0.6
milliamperes (mA) at 10 kHz, increasing 20 decibels (dB) per
frequency decade to a minimum of 30 mA at 500 kHz.
(2) From 500 kHz to 40 MHz, the conducted susceptibility current
must be at least 30 mA.
(3) From 40 MHz to 400 MHz, use conducted susceptibility tests,
starting at a minimum of 30 mA at 40 MHz, decreasing 20 dB per
frequency decade to a minimum of 3 mA at 400 MHz.
(4) From 100 MHz to 400 MHz, use radiated susceptibility tests
at a minimum of 20 volts per meter (V/m) peak with CW and 1 kHz
square wave modulation with 90 percent depth or greater.
(5) From 400 MHz to 8 gigahertz (GHz), use radiated
susceptibility tests at a minimum of 150 V/m peak with pulse
modulation of 4 percent duty cycle with a 1 kHz pulse repetition
frequency. This signal must be switched on and off at a rate of 1 Hz
with a duty cycle of 50 percent.
(e) Equipment HIRF Test Level 2. Equipment HIRF test level 2 is
HIRF environment II in table II of this appendix reduced by
acceptable aircraft transfer function and attenuation curves.
Testing must cover the frequency band of 10 kHz to 8 GHz.
(f) Equipment HIRF Test Level 3.
(1) From 10 kHz to 400 MHz, use conducted susceptibility tests,
starting at a minimum of 0.15 mA at 10 kHz, increasing 20 dB per
frequency decade to a minimum of 7.5 mA at 500 kHz.
(2) From 500 kHz to 40 MHz, use conducted susceptibility tests
at a minimum of 7.5 mA.
(3) From 40 MHz to 400 MHz, use conducted susceptibility tests,
starting at a minimum of 7.5 mA at 40 MHz, decreasing 20 dB per
frequency decade to a minimum of 0.75 mA at 400 MHz.
(4) From 100 MHz to 8 GHz, use radiated susceptibility tests at
a minimum of 5 V/m.
PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
0
10. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702,
44704.
0
11. Add Sec. 29.1317 to subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 29.1317 High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Protection.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each
electrical and electronic system that performs a function whose failure
would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the rotorcraft
must be designed and installed so that--
(1) The function is not adversely affected during and after the
time the rotorcraft is exposed to HIRF environment I, as described in
appendix E to this part;
(2) The system automatically recovers normal operation of that
function, in a timely manner, after the rotorcraft is exposed to HIRF
environment I, as
[[Page 44028]]
described in appendix E to this part, unless this conflicts with other
operational or functional requirements of that system;
(3) The system is not adversely affected during and after the time
the rotorcraft is exposed to HIRF environment II, as described in
appendix E to this part; and
(4) Each function required during operation under visual flight
rules is not adversely affected during and after the time the
rotorcraft is exposed to HIRF environment III, as described in appendix
E to this part.
(b) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function
whose failure would significantly reduce the capability of the
rotorcraft or the ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse
operating condition must be designed and installed so the system is not
adversely affected when the equipment providing these functions is
exposed to equipment HIRF test level 1 or 2, as described in appendix E
to this part.
(c) Each electrical and electronic system that performs such a
function whose failure would reduce the capability of the rotorcraft or
the ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating
condition must be designed and installed so the system is not adversely
affected when the equipment providing these functions is exposed to
equipment HIRF test level 3, as described in appendix E to this part.
(d) Before December 1, 2012, an electrical or electronic system
that performs a function whose failure would prevent the continued safe
flight and landing of a rotorcraft may be designed and installed
without meeting the provisions of paragraph (a) provided--
(1) The system has previously been shown to comply with special
conditions for HIRF, prescribed under Sec. 21.16, issued before
December 1, 2007;
(2) The HIRF immunity characteristics of the system have not
changed since compliance with the special conditions was demonstrated;
and
(3) The data used to demonstrate compliance with the special
conditions is provided.
0
12. Add appendix E to part 29 to read as follows:
Appendix E to Part 29-HIRF Environments and Equipment HIRF Test Levels
This appendix specifies the HIRF environments and equipment HIRF
test levels for electrical and electronic systems under Sec.
29.1317. The field strength values for the HIRF environments and
laboratory equipment HIRF test levels are expressed in root-mean-
square units measured during the peak of the modulation cycle.
(a) HIRF environment I is specified in the following table:
Table I.--HIRF Environment I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field strength
(volts/meter)
Frequency ---------------------
Peak Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 kHz-2 MHz...................................... 50 50
2 MHz-30 MHz...................................... 100 100
30 MHz-100 MHz.................................... 50 50
100 MHz-400 MHz................................... 100 100
400 MHz-700 MHz................................... 700 50
700 MHz-1 GHz..................................... 700 100
1 GHz-2 GHz....................................... 2,000 200
2 GHz-6 GHz....................................... 3,000 200
6 GHz-8 GHz....................................... 1,000 200
8 GHz-12 GHz...................................... 3,000 300
12 GHz-18 GHz..................................... 2,000 200
18 GHz-40 GHz..................................... 600 200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this table, the higher field strength applies at the frequency band
edges.
(b) HIRF environment II is specified in the following table:
Table II.--HIRF Environment II
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field strength
(volts/meter)
Frequency ---------------------
Peak Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 kHz-500 kHz.................................... 20 20
500 kHz-2 MHz..................................... 30 30
2 MHz-30 MHz...................................... 100 100
30 MHz-100 MHz.................................... 10 10
100 MHz-200 MHz................................... 30 10
200 MHz-400 MHz................................... 10 10
400 MHz-1 GHz..................................... 700 40
1 GHz-2 GHz....................................... 1,300 160
2 GHz-4 GHz....................................... 3,000 120
4 GHz-6 GHz....................................... 3,000 160
6 GHz-8 GHz....................................... 400 170
8 GHz-12 GHz...................................... 1,230 230
12 GHz-18 GHz..................................... 730 190
18 GHz-40 GHz..................................... 600 150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this table, the higher field strength applies at the frequency band
edges.
(c) HIRF environment III is specified in the following table:
Table III.--HIRF Environment III
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Field strength
(volts/meter)
Frequency ---------------------
Peak Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 kHz-100 kHz.................................... 150 150
100 kHz-400 MHz................................... 200 200
400 MHz-700 MHz................................... 730 200
700 MHz-1 GHz..................................... 1,400 240
1 GHz-2 GHz....................................... 5,000 250
2 GHz-4 GHz....................................... 6,000 490
4 GHz-6 GHz....................................... 7,200 400
6 GHz-8 GHz....................................... 1,100 170
8 GHz-12 GHz...................................... 5,000 330
12 GHz-18 GHz..................................... 2,000 330
18 GHz-40 GHz..................................... 1,000 420
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this table, the higher field strength applies at the frequency band
edges.
(d) Equipment HIRF Test Level 1.
(1) From 10 kilohertz (kHz) to 400 megahertz (MHz), use
conducted susceptibility tests with continuous wave (CW) and 1 kHz
square wave modulation with 90 percent depth or greater. The
conducted susceptibility current must start at a minimum of 0.6
milliamperes (mA) at 10 kHz, increasing 20 decibel (dB) per
frequency decade to a minimum of 30 mA at 500 kHz.
(2) From 500 kHz to 40 MHz, the conducted susceptibility current
must be at least 30 mA.
(3) From 40 MHz to 400 MHz, use conducted susceptibility tests,
starting at a minimum of 30 mA at 40 MHz, decreasing 20 dB per
frequency decade to a minimum of 3 mA at 400 MHz.
(4) From 100 MHz to 400 MHz, use radiated susceptibility tests
at a minimum of 20 volts per meter (V/m) peak with CW and 1 kHz
square wave modulation with 90 percent depth or greater.
(5) From 400 MHz to 8 gigahertz (GHz), use radiated
susceptibility tests at a minimum of 150 V/m peak with pulse
modulation of 4 percent duty cycle with a 1 kHz pulse repetition
frequency. This signal must be switched on and off at a rate of 1 Hz
with a duty cycle of 50 percent.
(e) Equipment HIRF Test Level 2. Equipment HIRF test level 2 is
HIRF environment II in table II of this appendix reduced by
acceptable aircraft transfer function and attenuation curves.
Testing must cover the frequency band of 10 kHz to 8 GHz.
(f) Equipment HIRF Test Level 3.
(1) From 10 kHz to 400 MHz, use conducted susceptibility tests,
starting at a minimum of 0.15 mA at 10 kHz, increasing 20 dB per
frequency decade to a minimum of 7.5 mA at 500 kHz.
(2) From 500 kHz to 40 MHz, use conducted susceptibility tests
at a minimum of 7.5 mA.
(3) From 40 MHz to 400 MHz, use conducted susceptibility tests,
starting at a minimum of 7.5 mA at 40 MHz, decreasing 20 dB per
frequency decade to a minimum of 0.75 mA at 400 MHz.
(4) From 100 MHz to 8 GHz, use radiated susceptibility tests at
a minimum of 5 V/m.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 30, 2007.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-15195 Filed 8-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P