Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 76389

received will be considered prior to 

finalization of this rule.

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, including the 

Board’s recommendation, and other 

information, it is found that this interim 

final rule, as hereinafter set forth, will 

tend to effectuate the declared policy of 

the Act. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also 

found and determined upon good cause 

that it is impracticable, unnecessary, 

and contrary to the public interest to 

give preliminary notice prior to putting 

this rule into effect and that good cause 

exists for not postponing the effective 

date of this action until 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register

because: (1) The 2004–2005 marketing 

year began July 1, 2004, and the 

percentages established herein apply to 

all merchantable hazelnuts handled 

from the beginning of the crop year; (2) 

handlers are aware of this rule, which 

was recommended at an open Board 

meeting, and need no additional time to 

comply with this rule; and (3) interested 

persons are provided a 60-day comment 

period in which to respond, and all 

comments timely received will be 

considered prior to finalization of this 

action.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 982

Filberts, Hazelnuts, Marketing 

agreements, Nuts, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 982 is amended as 

follows:

PART 982—HAZELNUTS GROWN IN 

OREGON AND WASHINGTON

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 

982 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

■ 2. A new section 982.252 is added to 

read as follows:

[Note: This section will not be published 

in the annual Code of Federal Regulations.]

§ 982.252 Free and restricted 

percentages—2004–2005 marketing year. 

The final free and restricted 

percentages for merchantable hazelnuts 

for the 2004–2005 marketing year shall 

be 6.4921 and 93.5079 percent, 

respectively.

Dated: December 15, 2004. 

A.J. Yates, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service.

[FR Doc. 04–27907 Filed 12–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. NM294; Special Conditions No. 

25–277–SC] 

Special Conditions: Raytheon Aircraft 

Company Model MU–300 and MU–300–

10 Airplanes and Model 400 Airplanes; 

High-Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: These special conditions are 

issued for Raytheon Aircraft Company 

Model MU–300 and MU–300–10 

airplanes and Model 400 airplanes 

modified by Beechjet TECH. These 

modified airplanes will have a novel or 

unusual design feature when compared 

to the state of technology envisioned in 

the airworthiness standards for 

transport category airplanes. The 

modification incorporates installation of 

two Shadin ADC–6400 RVSM–capable 

air data computers that perform critical 

functions. The applicable airworthiness 

regulations do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for the 

protection of these systems from the 

effects of high-intensity radiated fields 

(HIRF). These special conditions 

contain the additional safety standards 

that the Administrator considers 

necessary to establish a level of safety 

equivalent to that established by the 

existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these 

special conditions is December 6, 2004. 

Comments must be received on or 

before January 20, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments on these special 

conditions may be mailed in duplicate 

to: Federal Aviation Administration, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Attention: Rules Docket (ANM–113), 

Docket No. NM294 1601 Lind Avenue, 

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056; 

or delivered in duplicate to the 

Transport Airplane Directorate at the 

above address. All comments must be 

marked Docket No. NM294.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg 

Dunn, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew 

Interface Branch, ANM–111, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2799; 

facsimile (425) 227–1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA has determined that notice 

and opportunity for prior public 

comment is impracticable because these 

procedures would significantly delay 

certification of the airplane and thus 

delivery of the affected aircraft. In 

addition, the substance of these special 

conditions has been subject to the 

public comment process in several prior 

instances with no substantive comments 

received. The FAA therefore finds that 

good cause exists for making these 

special conditions effective upon 

issuance; however, we invite interested 

persons to participate in this rulemaking 

by submitting written comments, data, 

or views. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

special conditions, explain the reason 

for any recommended change, and 

include supporting data. We ask that 

you send us two copies of written 

comments. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning these special conditions. 

The docket is available for public 

inspection before and after the comment 

closing date. If you wish to review the 

docket in person, go to the address in 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

We will consider all comments we 

receive on or before the closing date for 

comments. We will consider comments 

filed late if it is possible to do so 

without incurring expense or delay. We 

may change these special conditions 

based on the comments we receive. 

If you want the FAA to acknowledge 

receipt of your comments on these 

special conditions, include with your 

comments a pre-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the docket number 

appears. We will stamp the date on the 

postcard and mail it back to you. 

Background 

On July 19, 2004, Beechjet TECH, 

4500 S. Garnett, Suite #600, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma 74146 applied for a 

supplemental type certificate (STC) to 

modify Raytheon Aircraft Company 

Model MU–300 and MU–300–10 

airplanes and Model 400 airplanes. 

Model MU–300 is currently approved 

under Type Certificate No. A14SW and 

Models MU–300–10 and 400 are 

currently approved under Type 

Certificate No. A16SW. The Raytheon 

Aircraft Company Model MU–300 and 

MU–300–10 airplanes and Model 400 

airplanes are small transport category 

airplanes powered by two turbojet

76390 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

engines. They operate with a 2-pilot 

crew and can seat up to 9 passengers. 

The modification incorporates the 

installation of two Shadin ADC–6400 air 

data computers, with the capability for 

operating the airplane at a reduced 

vertical separation minimum (RVSM). 

The avionics/electronics and electrical 

systems installed in this airplane have 

the potential to be vulnerable to highintensity radiated fields (HIRF) external 

to the airplane. 

Type Certification Basis 

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 

21.101, Beechjet TECH must show that 

the Raytheon Aircraft Company Model 

MU–300 and MU–300–10 airplanes and 

Model 400 airplanes, as changed, 

continue to meet the applicable 

provisions of the regulations 

incorporated by reference in Type 

Certificates No. A16SW or A14SW, as 

applicable, or the applicable regulations 

in effect on the date of application for 

the change. The regulations 

incorporated by reference in the type 

certificate are commonly referred to as 

the ‘‘original type certification basis.’’

The certification bases for the Raytheon 

Aircraft Company Model MU–300 and 

MU–300–10 airplanes and Model 400 

airplanes include 14 CFR part 25, as 

amended by Amendments 25–1 through 

25–40; §§ 25.1351(d), 25.1353(c)(5), and 

25.1450 as amended by Amendment 25–

41; §§ 25.29, 25.255, and 25.1353(c)(6) 

as amended by Amendment 25–42; 

§ 25.361(b) as amended by Amendment 

25–46; and 14 CFR part 36 as amended 

by Amendment 36–1 through 36–12. 

If the Administrator finds that the 

applicable airworthiness regulations 

(i.e., part 25, as amended) do not 

contain adequate or appropriate safety 

standards for the Raytheon Aircraft 

Company Model MU–300 and MU–300–

10 airplanes and Model 400 airplanes 

because of a novel or unusual design 

feature, special conditions are 

prescribed under the provisions of 

§ 21.16. 

In addition to the applicable 

airworthiness regulations and special 

conditions, the Raytheon Aircraft 

Company Model MU–300 and MU–300–

10 airplanes and Model 400 airplanes 

must comply with the fuel vent and 

exhaust emission requirements of 14 

CFR part 34 and the noise certification 

requirements of 14 CFR part 36. 

Special conditions, as defined in 14 

CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance 

with § 11.38 and become part of the type 

certification basis in accordance with 

§ 21.101.

Special conditions are initially 

applicable to the model for which they 

are issued. Should Beechjet TECH apply 

at a later date for a supplemental type 

certificate to modify any other model 

included on Type Certificate No. 

A16SW or A14SW, as applicable, to 

incorporate the same or similar novel or 

unusual design feature, these special 

conditions would also apply to the other 

model under the provisions of § 21.101. 

Novel or Unusual Design Features 

As noted earlier, the Raytheon 

Aircraft Company Model MU–300 and 

MU–300–10 airplanes and Model 400 

airplanes modified by Beechjet TECH 

will incorporate two Shadin ADC–6400 

RVSM-capable air data computers that 

will perform critical functions. These 

systems may be vulnerable to highintensity radiated fields external to the 

airplane. The current airworthiness 

standards of part 25 do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards 

for the protection of this equipment 

from the adverse effects of HIRF. 

Accordingly, this system is considered 

to be a novel or unusual design feature. 

Discussion 

There is no specific regulation that 

addresses protection requirements for 

electrical and electronic systems from 

HIRF. Increased power levels from 

ground-based radio transmitters and the 

growing use of sensitive avionics/

electronics and electrical systems to 

command and control airplanes have 

made it necessary to provide adequate 

protection. 

To ensure that a level of safety is 

achieved equivalent to that intended by 

the regulations incorporated by 

reference, special conditions are needed 

for the Raytheon Aircraft Company 

Model MU–300 and MU–300–10 

airplanes and Model 400 airplanes 

modified by Beechjet TECH. These 

special conditions require that new 

avionics/electronics and electrical 

systems that perform critical functions 

be designed and installed to preclude 

component damage and interruption of 

function due to both the direct and 

indirect effects of HIRF. 

High-Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) 

With the trend toward increased 

power levels from ground-based 

transmitters, and the advent of space 

and satellite communications, coupled 

with electronic command and control of 

the airplane, the immunity of critical 

avionics/electronics and electrical 

systems to HIRF must be established. 

It is not possible to precisely define 

the HIRF to which the airplane will be 

exposed in service. There is also 

uncertainty concerning the effectiveness 

of airframe shielding for HIRF. 

Furthermore, coupling of 

electromagnetic energy to cockpitinstalled equipment through the cockpit 

window apertures is undefined. Based 

on surveys and analysis of existing HIRF 

emitters, an adequate level of protection 

exists when compliance with the HIRF 

protection special condition is shown 

with either paragraph 1 or 2 below: 

1. A minimum threat of 100 volts rms 

(root-mean-square) per meter electric 

field strength from 10 KHz to 18 GHz. 

a. The threat must be applied to the 

system elements and their associated 

wiring harnesses without the benefit of 

airframe shielding. 

b. Demonstration of this level of 

protection is established through system 

tests and analysis. 

2. A threat external to the airframe of 

the field strengths identified in the table 

below for the frequency ranges 

indicated. Both peak and average field 

strength components from the table are 

to be demonstrated.

Frequency 

Field strength

(volts per meter) 

Peak Average 

10 kHz–100 kHz ... 50 50

100 kHz–500 kHz 50 50

500 kHz–2 MHz .... 50 50

2 MHz–30 MHz ..... 100 100

30 MHz–70 MHz ... 50 50

70 MHz–100 MHz 50 50

100 MHz–200 MHz 100 100

200 MHz–400 MHz 100 100

400 MHz–700 MHz 700 50

700 MHz–1 GHz ... 700 100

1 GHz–2 GHz ....... 2000 200

2 GHz—4 GHz ..... 3000 200

4 GHz–6 GHz ....... 3000 200

6 GHz–8 GHz ....... 1000 200

8 GHz–12 GHz ..... 3000 300

12 GHz–18 GHz ... 2000 200

18 GHz–40 GHz ... 600 200

The field strengths are expressed in terms 

of peak of the root-mean-square (rms) over 

the complete modulation period. 

The threat levels identified above are 

the result of an FAA review of existing 

studies on the subject of HIRF, in light 

of the ongoing work of the 

Electromagnetic Effects Harmonization 

Working Group of the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee. 

Applicability 

As discussed above, these special 

conditions are applicable to Raytheon 

Aircraft Company Model MU–300 and 

MU–300–10 airplanes and Model 400 

airplanes modified by Beechjet TECH. 

Should Beechjet TECH apply at a later 

date for a supplemental type certificate 

to modify any other model included on 

Type Certificate No. A16SW or A14SW, 

as applicable, to incorporate the same or 

similar novel or unusual design feature, 

these special conditions would apply to 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 76391

that model as well under the provisions 

of § 21.101. 

Conclusion 

This action affects only certain novel 

or unusual design features on Raytheon 

Aircraft Company Model MU–300 and 

MU–300–10 airplanes and Model 400 

airplanes modified by Beechjet TECH. It 

is not a rule of general applicability and 

affects only the applicant who applied 

to the FAA for approval of these features 

on the airplane. 

The substance of these special 

conditions has been subjected to the 

notice and comment procedure in 

several prior instances and has been 

derived without substantive change 

from those previously issued. Because a 

delay would significantly affect the 

certification of the airplane, which is 

imminent, the FAA has determined that 

prior public notice and comment are 

unnecessary and impracticable, and 

good cause exists for adopting these 

special conditions upon issuance. The 

FAA is requesting comments to allow 

interested persons to submit views that 

may not have been submitted in 

response to the prior opportunities for 

comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements.

■ The authority citation for these special 

conditions is as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 

44702, 44704. 

The Special Conditions

■ Accordingly, pursuant to the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the following special conditions are 

issued as part of the supplemental type 

certification basis for the Raytheon 

Aircraft Company Model MU–300 and 

MU–300–10 airplanes and Model 400 

airplanes modified by Beechjet TECH. 

1. Protection from Unwanted Effects 

of High-Intensity Radiated Fields 

(HIRF). Each electrical and electronic 

system that performs critical functions 

must be designed and installed to 

ensure that the operation and 

operational capability of these systems 

to perform critical functions are not 

adversely affected when the airplane is 

exposed to high-intensity radiated 

fields. 

2. For the purpose of these special 

conditions, the following definition 

applies: Critical Functions: Functions 

whose failure would contribute to or 

cause a failure condition that would 

prevent the continued safe flight and 

landing of the airplane.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

December 6, 2004. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–27824 Filed 12–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA–2004–18897; Airspace 

Docket No. 04–AAL–12] 

Revision of Class E Airspace; 

Kotzebue, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action revises Class E 

airspace at Kotzebue, AK to provide 

adequate controlled airspace to contain 

aircraft executing two new Standard 

Instrument Approach Procedures 

(SIAP). This Rule results in additional 

Class E surface area airspace at 

Kotzebue, AK.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, March 17, 

2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jesse Patterson, AAL–538G, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th 

Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513–

7587; telephone number (907) 271–

5898; fax: (907) 271–2850; e-mail: 

Jesse.ctr.Patterson@faa.gov. Internet 

address: http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

On Friday, September 10, 2004, the 

FAA proposed to revise part 71 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

part 71) to create additional Class E 

surface area airspace at Kotzebue, AK 

(69 FR 54758). The action was proposed 

in order to add Class E airspace 

sufficient in size to contain aircraft 

while executing two new Standard 

Instrument Approach Procedures for the 

Kotzebue Airport. The new approaches 

are (1) Area Navigation-Global 

Positioning System (RNAV GPS) 

Runway (RWY) 26, original, (2) RNAV 

(GPS) Y RWY 8, original. Interested 

parties were invited to participate in 

this rulemaking proceeding by 

submitting written comments on the 

proposal to the FAA. No public 

comments have been received, thus, the 

rule is adopted as proposed. 

The area will be depicted on 

aeronautical charts for pilot reference. 

The coordinates for this airspace docket 

are based on North American Datum 83. 

The Class E airspace areas designated as 

surface areas are published in paragraph 

6002 of FAA Order 7400.9M, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 30, 2004, and effective 

September 16, 2004, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class E airspace designation 

listed in this document will be revised 

subsequently in the Order. 

The Rule 

This revision to 14 CFR part 71 

revises Class E airspace at Kotzebue, 

Alaska. This additional Class E airspace 

was created to accommodate aircraft 

executing two new SIAPs and will be 

depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot 

reference. The intended effect of this 

rule is to provide adequate controlled 

airspace for IFR operations at Kotzebue 

Airport, Kotzebue, Alaska. 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. It, therefore’(1) is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

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

does not warrant preparation of a 

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified that this rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in title 

49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, 

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 1, section 40103, 

Sovereignty and use of airspace. Under 

that section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to ensure the 

safe and efficient use of the navigable 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority because it revises 

Class E surface area sufficient in size to 

contain aircraft executing two new 

Standard Instrument Approach 

Procedures for the Kotzebue Airport and 

represents the FAA’s continuing effort 

to safely and efficiently use the 

navigable airspace.