This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

288 

Vol. 76, No. 2 

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 205 

[Document Number AMS–TM–07–0136; TM– 

07–14PR] 

RIN 0581–AC77 

National Organic Program (NOP); 

Sunset Review (2011) 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

address recommendations submitted to 

the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) 

by the National Organic Standards 

Board (NOSB) on November 5, 2009, 

and April 29, 2010. The 

recommendations addressed in this 

proposed rule pertain to the continued 

exemption (use) of 12 substances in 

organic production and handling. 

Consistent with the recommendations 

from the NOSB, this proposed rule 

would continue the exemption (use) of 

12 substances on the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA) National List of 

Allowed and Prohibited Substances 

(National List) (along with any 

restrictive annotations). These 

substances were originally added to the 

National List on September 12, 2006. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

February 3, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may 

submit written comments on this 

proposed rule using the following 

addresses: 

• Mail: Toni Strother, Agricultural 

Marketing Specialist, National Organic 

Program, USDA–AMS–NOP, 1400 

Independence Ave., SW., Room 2646– 

So., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC 

20250. 

• Internet: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Written comments responding to this 

proposed rule should be identified with 

the docket number AMS–TM–07–0136; 

TM–07–14. You should clearly indicate 

your position to continue the allowance 

of the substances identified in this 

proposed rule and the reasons for your 

position. You should include relevant 

information and data to support your 

position (e.g., scientific, environmental, 

manufacturing, industry impact 

information, etc.). You should also 

supply information on alternative 

substances or alternative management 

practices, where applicable, that 

support a change from the current 

exemption for the substance. Only the 

supporting material relevant to your 

position will be considered. 

It is our intention to have all 

comments concerning this proposed 

rule, including, names and addresses 

when provided, whether submitted by 

mail or Internet available for viewing on 

the Regulations.gov (http:// 

www.regulations.gov) Internet site. 

Comments submitted in response to this 

proposed rule will also be available for 

viewing in person at USDA–AMS, 

National Organic Program, 1400 

Independence Ave., SW., Room 2646– 

South Building, Washington, DC, from 

9 a.m. to 12 noon and from 1 p.m. to 

4 p.m., Monday through Friday, (except 

official Federal holidays). Persons 

wanting to visit the USDA South 

Building to view comments received in 

response to this proposed rule are 

requested to make an appointment in 

advance by calling (202) 720–3252. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Bailey, Director, Standards 

Division, Telephone: (202) 720–3252; 

Fax: (202) 205–7808. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Organic Foods Production Act of 

1990 (OFPA), 7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq., 

authorizes the establishment of the 

National List of exempted and 

prohibited substances. The National List 

identifies synthetic substances that may 

be used in organic production and 

nonsynthetic (natural) substances that 

are prohibited in organic crop and 

livestock production. The National List 

also identifies nonagricultural 

nonsynthetic, nonagricultural synthetic 

and nonorganic agricultural substances 

that may be used in organic handling. 

The exemptions and prohibitions 

granted under the OFPA are required to 

be reviewed every 5 years by the 

National Organic Standards Board 

(NOSB). The Secretary of Agriculture 

has authority under the OFPA to renew 

such exemptions and prohibitions. If 

they are not reviewed by the NOSB 

within 5 years of their inclusion on the 

National List and renewed by the 

Secretary, their authorized use or 

prohibition expires. This means that 

synthetic substances Hydrogen chloride 

(CAS # 7647–01–0) and Ferric 

phosphate (CAS # 10045–86–0), 

currently allowed for use in organic 

crop production, will no longer be 

allowed for use after the sunset date, 

September 12, 2011. This also means 

that Egg white lysozyme (CAS # 9001– 

63–2), L–Malic acid (CAS # 97–67–6), 

Microorganisms, Activated charcoal 

(CAS #s 7440–44–0; 64365–11–3), 

Cyclohexylamine (CAS # 108–91–8), 

Diethylaminoethanol (CAS # 100–37–8), 

Octadecylamine (CAS # 124–30–1), 

Peracetic acid/Peroxyacetic acid (CAS # 

79–21–0), Sodium acid pyrophosphate 

(CAS # 7758–16–9), and Tetrasodium 

pyrophosphate (CAS # 7722–88–5), 

currently allowed for use in organic 

handling, will no longer be allowed for 

use after the sunset date, September 12, 

2011. 

In response to the sunset provisions 

in the OFPA, the Secretary published an 

Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPR) (73 FR 13795) in 

the Federal Register on March 14, 2008, 

to announce the review of the 12 

exemptions authorized under the 

National Organic Program (NOP) 

regulations. This ANPR also requested 

public comment on the continued use of 

such substances. The public comment 

period lasted 60 days. 

We received 25 comments in response 

to the ANPR. Comments were received 

from producers, handlers, certifying 

agents, trade associations, organic 

associations, various industry groups, 

and a university. Some comments 

addressed more than one substance. We 

received general comments urging that 

the current listings remain as they are 

currently stated, and one general 

comment insisting that no chemicals 

should be allowed for use in organic 

products. Most commenters provided 

specific support for substances that they 

promoted, represented, or relied upon. 

Specific support was received for the 

following substances: Hydrogen 

chloride, Ferric phosphate, Egg white 

lysozyme, L-Malic acid, 

Microorganisms, Activated charcoal, 

Cyclohexylamine, Diethylaminoethanol, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 289 

Octadecylamine, Peracetic acid/ 

Peroxyacetic acid, Sodium acid 

pyrophosphate, and Tetrasodium 

pyrophosphate. 

The NOSB received additional public 

comment concerning the pending sunset 

of the 12 substances in response to three 

Federal Register Notices announcing 

meetings of the NOSB and its planned 

deliberations on recommendations 

involving Sunset 2011 substances. The 

three notices were published in the 

Federal Register as follows: March 20, 

2009 (74 FR 11904), September 9, 2009 

(74 FR 46411), and March 17, 2010 (75 

FR 12723). The NOSB received further 

written and oral testimony at these 

public business meetings which 

occurred in Washington, DC on May 4– 

6, 2009, and November 3–5, 2009, and 

in Woodland, CA on April 26–29, 2010. 

The written comments can be retrieved 

via http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for the document ID numbers: 

AMS–TM–09–0014 (May 2009 meeting); 

AMS–TM–09–0060 (November 2009 

meeting); and AMS–NOP–10–0021 

(April 2010). The oral comments were 

recorded in the meeting transcripts 

which are available on the NOP Web 

site, http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop. 

As a result of the May 2009, 

November 2009, and April 2010, NOSB 

meetings, and in consideration of the 

comments received from the ANPR, the 

NOSB recommended that the Secretary 

renew the 12 exemptions on the 

National List (along with any restrictive 

annotations). The Secretary is issuing 

this proposed rule to reflect the 

recommendations of the NOSB, from 

November 2009 and April 2010, and to 

request public comment on the 

continued exemption (use) of 12 

substances on the National List. 

Under the authority of the OFPA, as 

amended, (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.), the 

National List can be amended by the 

Secretary based on proposed 

amendments developed by the NOSB. 

Since established, the National List has 

been amended fourteen times, October 

31, 2003 (68 FR 61987), November 3, 

2003 (68 FR 62215), October 21, 2005 

(70 FR 61217), June 7, 2006 (71 FR 

32803), September 11, 2006 (71 FR 

53299), June 27, 2007 (72 FR 35137), 

October 16, 2007 (72 FR 58469), 

December 10, 2007 (72 FR 69569), 

December 12, 2007 (72 FR 70479), 

September 18, 2008 (73 FR 54057), 

October 9, 2008 (73 FR 59479), July 6, 

2010 (75 FR 38693), August 24, 2010 (75 

FR 51919), and December 13, 2010 (75 

FR 77521). Additionally, proposed 

amendments to the National List were 

published on November 8, 2010 (75 FR 

68505). 

II. Overview of Proposed Renewals 

From May 4, 2009, through April 29, 

2010, the NOSB reviewed 12 

exemptions that are authorized on the 

National List and set to expire on 

September 12, 2011. Using the 

evaluation criteria specified in the 

ANPR for sunset review, the NOSB 

reviewed these exemptions for 

continued authorization in organic 

agricultural production and handling. 

As a result of the NOSB’s review, the 

NOSB recommended that the Secretary 

renew the 12 exemptions. 

With respect to the criteria used to 

make recommendations regarding the 

continued authorization of exemptions 

and prohibitions, the NOSB’s decision 

is based on public comments and 

applicable supporting evidence that 

expresses a continued need for the use 

or prohibition of the substance(s). 

Concerning criteria used to make 

recommendations regarding the 

discontinuation of an authorized 

exempted synthetic substance or 

prohibited nonsynthetic substance, the 

NOSB’s decision, for the exempted 

synthetic substance, is based on public 

comments and applicable supporting 

evidence that demonstrates the 

currently authorized exempted 

substance is: (a) Harmful to human 

health or the environment, (b) not 

necessary to the production of the 

agricultural products because of the 

availability of wholly nonsynthetic 

substitute products, or (c) inconsistent 

with organic farming and handling. 

Renewals 

After considering all public comments 

and supporting evidence, the NOSB 

determined that the 12 exemptions 

demonstrated a continued need for 

authorization in organic agricultural 

production and handling. On November 

5, 2009, the NOSB finalized its 

recommendations on 11 of the 12 

exemptions, and on April 29, 2010, the 

NOSB finalized its recommendation on 

Ferric phosphate. 

The Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS) has reviewed and concurs with 

the NOSB recommendations. 

Accordingly, this proposed rule would 

continue the exemptions at § 205.601, 

along with any restrictive annotations, 

for the following synthetic substances 

allowed for use in organic crop 

production: Ferric phosphate (CAS # 

10045–86–0); and Hydrogen chloride 

(CAS # 7647–01–0). This proposed rule 

would continue the exemptions at 

§ 205.605(a), along with any restrictive 

annotations, for the following 

nonsynthetic, nonagricultural 

(nonorganic) substances allowed as 

ingredients in or on processed products 

labeled as ‘‘organic’’ or ‘‘made with 

organic (specified ingredients or food 

groups(s))’’: Egg white lysozyme (CAS # 

9001–63–2); L–Malic acid (CAS # 97– 

67–6); and Microorganisms. This 

proposed rule would continue the 

exemptions at § 205.605(b), along with 

any restrictive annotations, for the 

following synthetic, nonagricultural 

(nonorganic) substances allowed as 

ingredients in or on processed products 

labeled as ‘‘organic’’ or ‘‘made with 

organic (specified ingredients or food 

groups(s))’’: Activated charcoal (CAS #s 

7440–44–0; 64365–11–3); 

Cyclohexylamine (CAS # 108–91–8); 

Diethylaminoethanol (CAS # 100–37–8); 

Octadecylamine (CAS # 124–30–1); 

Peracetic acid/Peroxyacetic acid (CAS # 

79–21–0); Sodium acid pyrophosphate 

(CAS # 7758–16–9); and Tetrasodium 

pyrophosphate (CAS # 7722–88–5). 

III. Related Documents 

One advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking with request for comments 

was published in Federal Register 73 

FR 13795 on March 14, 2008, to make 

the public aware that the allowance of 

12 synthetic and non-synthetic 

substances in organic production and 

handling will expire, if not reviewed by 

the NOSB and renewed by the 

Secretary. 

IV. Statutory and Regulatory Authority 

The OFPA, as amended (7 U.S.C. 6501 

et seq.), authorizes the Secretary to 

make amendments to the National List 

based on proposed amendments 

developed by the NOSB. Sections 

6518(k)(2) and 6518(n) of OFPA 

authorize the NOSB to develop 

proposed amendments to the National 

List for submission to the Secretary and 

establish a petition process by which 

persons may petition the NOSB for the 

purpose of having substances evaluated 

for inclusion on or deletion from the 

National List. The National List petition 

process is implemented under § 205.607 

of the NOP regulations. The current 

petition process (72 FR 2167, January 

18, 2007) can be accessed through the 

NOP Web site at: http:// 

www.ams.usda.gov/nop. 

A. Executive Order 12866 

This action has been determined not 

significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866, and therefore, has not 

been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

B. Executive Order 12988 

Executive Order 12988 instructs each 

executive agency to adhere to certain 

requirements in the development of new 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
290 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service. 2009. Data Sets: U.S. Certified 

Organic Farmland Acreage, Livestock Numbers and 

Farm Operations, 1992–2008. http:// 

www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic/. 

2U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, 2009. Data Sets: Procurement and 

Contracting by Organic Handlers: Documentation. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/OrganicHandlers/ 

Documentation.htm. 3 Dimitri, C., and L. Oberholtzer. 2009. Marketing 

U.S. Organic Foods: Recent Trends from Farms to 

Consumers, Economic Information Bulletin No. 58, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ 

EIB58. 

4Organic Trade Association’s 2010 Organic 

Industry Survey, http://www.ota.com. 

and revised regulations in order to avoid 

unduly burdening the court system. 

This proposed rule is not intended to 

have a retroactive effect. 

States and local jurisdictions are 

preempted under the OFPA from 

creating programs of accreditation for 

private persons or State officials who 

want to become certifying agents of 

organic farms or handling operations. A 

governing State official would have to 

apply to USDA to be accredited as a 

certifying agent, as described in 

§ 2115(b) of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 

6514(b)). States are also preempted 

under §§ 2104 through 2108 of the 

OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6503 through 6507) 

from creating certification programs to 

certify organic farms or handling 

operations unless the State programs 

have been submitted to, and approved 

by, the Secretary as meeting the 

requirements of the OFPA. 

Pursuant to § 2108(b)(2) of the OFPA 

(7 U.S.C. 6507(b)(2)), a State organic 

certification program may contain 

additional requirements for the 

production and handling of organically 

produced agricultural products that are 

produced in the State and for the 

certification of organic farm and 

handling operations located within the 

State under certain circumstances. Such 

additional requirements must: (a) 

Further the purposes of the OFPA, (b) 

not be inconsistent with the OFPA, (c) 

not be discriminatory toward 

agricultural commodities organically 

produced in other States, and (d) not be 

effective until approved by the 

Secretary. 

Pursuant to § 2120(f) of the OFPA (7 

U.S.C. 6519(f)), this proposed rule 

would not alter the authority of the 

Secretary under the Federal Meat 

Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 

the Poultry Products Inspections Act (21 

U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or the Egg Products 

Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.), 

concerning meat, poultry, and egg 

products, nor any of the authorities of 

the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services under the Federal Food, Drug 

and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et 

seq.), nor the authority of the 

Administrator of EPA under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide 

Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). 

Section 2121 of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 

6520) provides for the Secretary to 

establish an expedited administrative 

appeals procedure under which persons 

may appeal an action of the Secretary, 

the applicable governing State official, 

or a certifying agent under this title that 

adversely affects such person or is 

inconsistent with the organic 

certification program established under 

this title. The OFPA also provides that 

the U.S. District Court for the district in 

which a person is located has 

jurisdiction to review the Secretary’s 

decision. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires agencies to 

consider the economic impact of each 

rule on small entities and evaluate 

alternatives that would accomplish the 

objectives of the rule without unduly 

burdening small entities or erecting 

barriers that would restrict their ability 

to compete in the market. The purpose 

is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of 

businesses subject to the action. Section 

605 of the RFA allows an agency to 

certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an 

analysis, if the rulemaking is not 

expected to have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Pursuant to the requirements set forth 

in the RFA, the AMS performed an 

economic impact analysis on small 

entities in the final rule published in the 

Federal Register on December 21, 2000 

(65 FR 80548). The AMS has also 

considered the economic impact of this 

action on small entities. The impact on 

entities affected by this proposed rule 

would not be significant. The effect of 

this proposed rule would be to allow the 

continued use of additional substances 

in agricultural production and handling. 

The AMS concludes that the economic 

impact of this addition of allowed 

substances, if any, would be minimal 

and beneficial to small agricultural 

service firms. Accordingly, USDA 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small agricultural service firms, 

which include producers, handlers, and 

accredited certifying agents, have been 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) 

as those having annual receipts of less 

than $7,000,000 and small agricultural 

producers are defined as those having 

annual receipts of less than $750,000. 

According to USDA, Economic 

Research Service (ERS) data based on 

information from USDA-accredited 

certifying agents, the number of certified 

U.S. organic crop and livestock 

operations totaled nearly 13,000 and 

certified organic acreage exceeded 4.8 

million acres in 2008.1 ERS, based upon 

the list of certified operations 

maintained by the NOP, estimated the 

number of certified handling operations 

was 3,225 in 2007.2 AMS believes that 

most of these entities would be 

considered small entities under the 

criteria established by the SBA. 

The U.S. sales of organic food and 

beverages have grown from $3.6 billion 

in 1997 to nearly $21.1 billion in 2008.3

The organic industry is viewed as the 

fastest growing sector of agriculture, 

representing over 3 percent of overall 

food sales in 2009. Between1990 and 

2008, organic food sales have 

historically demonstrated a growth rate 

between 15 to 24 percent each year. In 

2009, organic food sales grew 5.1%.4

In addition, USDA has 98 accredited 

certifying agents who provide 

certification services to producers and 

handlers. A complete list of names and 

addresses of accredited certifying agents 

may be found on the AMS NOP Web 

site, at http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop. 

AMS believes that most of these 

accredited certifying agents would be 

considered small entities under the 

criteria established by the SBA. 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

No additional collection or 

recordkeeping requirements are 

imposed on the public by this proposed 

rule. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not 

required by section 350(h) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq., or OMB’s 

implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 

1320. 

E. General Notice of Public Rulemaking 

This proposed rule reflects 

recommendations submitted to the 

Secretary by the NOSB for the 

continuation of 12 exemptions 

contained on the National List of 

Allowed and Prohibited Substances. A 

30-day period for interested persons to 

comment on this rule is provided. 

Thirty days is deemed appropriate 

because the expiration of these 12 

substances has been widely publicized, 

their continued use is critical to organic 

production, and this rulemaking should 

be completed before September 12, 

2011. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 205 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Agriculture, Animals, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 291 

Archives and records, Imports, Labeling, 

Organically produced products, Plants, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Seals and insignia, Soil 

conservation. 

The authority citation for 7 CFR part 

205 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501–6522. 

Dated: December 22, 2010. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–33138 Filed 1–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. NM439 Special Conditions No. 

25–10–04–SC] 

Special Conditions: Gulfstream Model 

GVI Airplane; Single-Occupant SideFacing Seats 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed special 

conditions. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes special 

conditions for the Gulfstream GVI 

airplane. This airplane will have a novel 

or unusual design feature(s) associated 

with single-occupant side-facing seats. 

The applicable airworthiness 

regulations do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for this 

design feature. These proposed 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: We must receive your comments 

by February 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You must mail two copies 

of your comments to: Federal Aviation 

Administration, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket (ANM– 

113), Docket No. NM439, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356. You may deliver two 

copies to the Transport Airplane 

Directorate at the above address. You 

must mark your comments: Docket No. 

NM439. You can inspect comments in 

the Rules Docket weekdays, except 

Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 

4 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Jacquet, FAA, Airframe/Cabin 

Safety Branch, ANM–115, Transport 

Standards Staff, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 227–2676; facsimile 

(425) 227–1320. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite interested people to take 

part in this rulemaking by sending 

written comments, data, or views. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the special 

conditions, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. We ask that you send 

us two copies of written comments. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning these special conditions. 

You can inspect the docket before and 

after the comment closing date. If you 

wish to review the docket in person, go 

to the address in the ADDRESSES section 

of this preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 

4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

We will consider all comments we 

receive 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 us to acknowledge receipt 

of your comments on this proposal, 

include with your comments a selfaddressed, stamped postcard on which 

you have written the docket number. 

We will stamp the date on the postcard 

and mail it back to you. 

Background 

On September 28, 2006, Gulfstream 

Aerospace Corporation (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘Gulfstream’’) applied for 

an FAA type certificate for its new 

Gulfstream Model GVI passenger 

airplane. The Gulfstream Model GVI 

airplane will be an all-new, two-engine 

jet transport airplane with an executive 

cabin interior. The maximum takeoff 

weight will be 99,600 pounds, with a 

maximum passenger count of 19 

passengers. 

Type Certification Basis 

Under provisions of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, 

Gulfstream must show that the 

Gulfstream Model GVI airplane 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘the GVI’’) meets 

the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 

25, as amended by Amendments 25–1 

through 25–119 and 25–122. If the 

Administrator finds that the applicable 

airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR 

part 25) do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for the GVI 

because of a novel or unusual design 

feature, special conditions are 

prescribed under the provisions of 

§ 21.16. 

In addition to complying with the 

applicable airworthiness regulations 

and special conditions, the GVI 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. The 

FAA must also issue a finding of 

regulatory adequacy pursuant to section 

611 of Public Law 92–574, the ‘‘Noise 

Control Act of 1972.’’ 

The FAA issues special conditions, as 

defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance 

with § 11.38, and they become part of 

the type certification basis under 

§ 21.17(a)(2). 

Special conditions are initially 

applicable to the model for which they 

are issued. Should the type certificate 

for that model be amended later to 

include any other model that 

incorporates the same novel or unusual 

design features, the special conditions 

would also apply to the other model 

under provisions of § 21.101. 

Novel or Unusual Design Features 

The GVI offers interior arrangements, 

which include single-occupant sidefacing seat installations. Dynamic 

testing of all seats approved for 

occupancy during takeoff and landing is 

required by § 25.562. The pass/fail 

criteria for the testing developed in 

Amendment 25–64 to § 25.562 focused 

primarily on fore/aft facing seats. Sidefacing seat installations were not 

adequately addressed for transport 

category airplanes in this amendment. 

Discussion of Proposed Special 

Conditions 

Section 25.785(b), ‘‘Seats, berths, 

safety belts, and harnesses,’’ requires 

that ‘‘each seat * * * at each station’’ 

designated as occupiable during takeoff 

and landing must be designed so that a 

person making proper use of these 

facilities ‘‘will not suffer serious injury 

in an emergency landing as a result of 

the inertia forces specified in §§ 25.561 

and 25.562.’’ Additionally, § 25.562, 

‘‘Emergency landing dynamic 

conditions,’’ requires dynamic testing of 

all seats occupied during takeoff and 

landing. The relative forces and injury 

mechanisms affecting the occupants of 

side-facing seats during an emergency 

landing are different from those of 

standard forward- or aft-facing seats, or 

seats equipped with conventional 

restraint systems. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1