30936 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 94 / Monday, May 15, 2000 / Proposed Rules

of product categories not included in

the Analysis, and (4) information or

evidence that bears on the adoption of

ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1–1999

efficiency levels as uniform national

standards under the terms of EPCA. The

Department encourages those who wish

to offer comments to obtain the

Screening Analysis report and to

address its contents. However,

respondents need not limit their

statements to the topics covered in the

study, as the Department is interested in

receiving views concerning any other

issues that participants believe would

affect the suitability of ASHRAE/IES

Standard 90.1–1999 efficiency standards

for commercial water heaters, boilers,

furnaces, air conditioners and heat

pumps. For example, comments might

include additional evidence, not

uncovered in the Screening Analysis,

bearing on the technological feasibility

and economic justification of more

stringent uniform national standards

than those in ASHRAE/IES Standard

90.1–1999 and on the significance of the

energy conservation that would result

from adopting them. Comments might

also include evidence as to whether any

standards more stringent than the ones

specified in ASHRAE/IES Standard

90.1–1999 are likely to result in

unavailability in the United States of

products with performance

characteristics (including reliability),

features, sizes, capacities and volumes

that are substantially the same as those

generally available in the United States

now.

After the period for written

comments, the Department will

consider the views submitted in

formulating rules regarding uniform

energy efficiency standards for

commercial water heaters, boilers,

furnaces, air conditioners and heat

pumps.

C. Public Workshop

1. Procedure for Submitting Requests To

Speak

You will find the time and place of

the public workshop listed at the

beginning of this notice. We invite any

person who has an interest in today’s

notice, or who is a representative of a

group or class of persons that has an

interest in these issues, to request an

opportunity to make an oral

presentation. If you would like to attend

the public workshop, please notify Ms.

Brenda Edwards-Jones at (202) 586–

2945. You may hand deliver requests to

speak to the address indicated at the

beginning of this notice between the

hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays, or you may send them by

mail.

The person making the request should

state why he or she, either individually

or as a representative of a group or class

of persons, is an appropriate

spokesperson; briefly describe the

nature of the interest in the proceeding;

and provide a telephone number for

contact. We request each person

selected to be heard to submit an

advance copy of his or her statement at

least one week prior to the date of this

workshop as indicated at the beginning

of this notice. We, at our discretion, may

permit any person wishing to speak who

cannot meet this requirement to

participate if that person has made

alternative arrangements with the Office

of Building Research and Standards in

advance. The letter making a request to

give an oral presentation must ask for

such alternative arrangements.

2. Conduct of Workshop

We will conduct the workshop in an

informal, conference style. We may use

a professional facilitator to facilitate

discussion, and a court reporter will

record the transcript of the meeting. We

will present summaries of comments

received before the workshop, allow

time for presentations by workshop

participants, and encourage all

interested parties to share their views on

issues affecting this proceeding. The

comment period closes on July 31, 2000

in order to allow interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the matters

raised at the workshop, as well as on

any other aspect of the proceeding. The

public workshop agenda is expected to

cover the topics listed in the preceding

Section III. B., Issues on Which

Comments Are Requested.

We will arrange for a transcript of the

workshop and will make the entire

record of this proceeding, including the

transcript, available for inspection in

the Department’s Freedom of

Information Reading Room. Any person

may purchase a copy of the transcript

from the transcribing reporter.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 8, 2000.

Dan W. Reicher,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 00–12112 Filed 5–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. CE161; Notice No. 23–00–02–

SC]

Special Conditions: Installation of Full

Authority Digital Engine Control

(FADEC) System on Morrow Aircraft

Corporation Model MB–300 Airplane

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed special

conditions.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes special

conditions for the Morrow Aircraft

Corporation Model MB–300, which will

use a FADEC System. This airplane will

have a novel or unusual design feature

associated with the installation of an

engine that uses an electronic engine

control system in place of the engine’s

mechanical system. 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: Comments must be received on

or before June 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal

may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Regional

Counsel, ACE–7, Attention: Rules

Docket, Docket No. CE161, DOT

Building, 901 Locust, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106, or delivered in

duplicate to the Regional Counsel at the

above address. Comments must be

marked: Docket No. CE161. Comments

may be inspected in the Rules Docket

weekdays, except Federal holidays,

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randy Griffith, Aerospace Engineer,

Federal Aviation Administration,

Aircraft Certification Service, Small

Airplane Directorate, ACE–111, 901

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,

Missouri, 816–329–4126, fax 816–329–

4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of these

proposed special conditions by

submitting such written data, views, or

arguments as they may desire.

Communications should identify the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 94 / Monday, May 15, 2000 / Proposed Rules 30937

regulatory docket or notice number and

be submitted in duplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments will be considered by the

Administrator. The proposals described

in this notice may be changed in light

of the comments received. All

comments received will be available in

the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons, both before and after

the closing date for comments. A report

summarizing each substantive public

contact with FAA personnel concerning

this rulemaking will be filed in the

docket. Persons wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must include with those comments a

self-addressed, stamped postcard on

which the following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Docket No. CE161.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Background

On March 5, 1999, Morrow Aircraft

Corporation applied for a type

certificate for the Model MB–300

airplane. The Model MB–300 is a small,

normal category airplane. The airplane

is powered by two reciprocating engines

equipped with an electronic engine

control system with full authority

capability in place of the

hydromechanical control system.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17,

Morrow Aircraft Corporation must show

that the Model MB–300 meets the

applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 23,

as amended by Amendments 23–1

through 23–53 thereto.

If the Administrator finds that the

applicable airworthiness regulations

(i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain

adequate or appropriate safety standards

for the Model MB–300 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 Model MB–300 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, and the

FAA must issue a finding of regulatory

adequacy pursuant to section 611 of

Public Law 92–574, the ‘‘Noise Control

Act of 1972.’’

Special conditions, as appropriate, are

issued in accordance with § 11.49 after

public notice, as required by §§ 11.28

and 11.29(b), and become part of the

type certification basis in accordance

with § 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 feature, the special conditions

would also apply to the other model

under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Morrow Model MB–300 will

incorporate the following novel or

unusual design features:

The Morrow Model MB–300 airplane

will use engines that include an

electronic control system with full

engine authority capability.

Many advanced electronic systems are

prone to either upsets or damage, or

both, at energy levels lower than analog

systems. The increasing use of high

power radio frequency emitters

mandates requirements for improved

high intensity radiated fields (HIRF)

protection for electrical and electronic

equipment. Since the electronic engine

control system used on the Morrow

Model MB–300 will perform critical

functions, provisions for protection

from the effects of HIRF fields should be

considered and, if necessary,

incorporated into the airplane design

data. The FAA policy contained in

Notice 8110.71, dated April 2, 1998,

establishes the HIRF energy levels that

airplanes will be exposed to in service.

The guidelines set forth in this Notice

are the result of an Aircraft Certification

Service review of existing policy on

HIRF, in light of the ongoing work of the

ARAC Electromagnetic Effects

Harmonization Working Group

(EEHWG). The EEHWG adopted a set of

HIRF environment levels in November

1997 that were agreed upon by the FAA,

JAA, and industry participants. As a

result, the HIRF environments in this

notice reflect the environment levels

recommended by this working group.

This notice states that a full authority

digital engine control is an example of

a system that should address the HIRF

environments.

Even though the control system will

be certificated as part of the engine, the

installation of an engine with an

electronic control system requires

evaluation due to the possible effects on

or by other airplane systems (e.g., radio

interference with other airplane

electronic systems, shared engine and

airplane power sources). The regulatory

requirements in 14 CFR part 23 for

evaluating the installation of complex

systems, including electronic systems,

are contained in § 23.1309. However,

when § 23.1309 was developed, the use

of electronic control systems for engines

was not envisioned; therefore, the

§ 23.1309 requirements were not

applicable to systems certificated as part

of the engine (reference § 23.1309(f)(1)).

Also, electronic control systems often

require inputs from airplane data and

power sources and outputs to other

airplane systems (e.g., automated

cockpit powerplant controls such as

mixture setting). Although the parts of

the system that are not certificated with

the engine could be evaluated using the

criteria of § 23.1309, the integral nature

of systems such as these makes it

unfeasible to evaluate the airplane

portion of the system without including

the engine portion of the system.

However, § 23.1309(f)(1) again prevents

complete evaluation of the installed

airplane system since evaluation of the

engine system’s effects is not required.

Therefore, special conditions are

proposed for the Morrow Model MB–

300 to provide HIRF protection and to

evaluate the installation of the

electronic engine control system for

compliance with the requirements of

§ 23.1309(a) through (e) at Amendment

23–53.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special

conditions are applicable to the Morrow

Model MB–300. Should Morrow

Aircraft Corporation apply at a later date

for a change to the type certificate to

include another model incorporating the

same novel or unusual design feature,

the special conditions would apply to

that model as well under the provisions

of § 21.101(a)(1).

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel

or unusual design features on one

model, the Morrow Model MB–300

airplane. It is not a rule of general

applicability, and it affects only the

applicant who applied to the FAA for

approval of these features on the

airplane.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and

symbols.

Authority: The authority citation for these

special conditions in part 23 is as follows:

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

44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.17, and 14 CFR

11.28 and 11.29(b).

The Proposed Special Conditions

Accordingly, the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) proposes the

following special conditions as part of

the type certification basis for Morrow

Model MB–300 airplane.

1. High Intensity Radiated Fields

(HIRF) Protection. In showing

30938 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 94 / Monday, May 15, 2000 / Proposed Rules

compliance with 14 CFR part 21 and the

airworthiness requirements of 14 CFR

part 23, protection against hazards

caused by exposure to HIRF fields for

the full authority digital engine control

system which performs critical

functions, must be considered. To

prevent this occurrence, the electronic

engine control system must be designed

and installed to ensure that the

operation and operational capabilities of

this critical system are not adversely

affected when the airplane is exposed to

high energy radio fields.

At this time, the FAA and other

airworthiness authorities are unable to

precisely define or control the HIRF

energy level to which the airplane will

be exposed in service; therefore, the

FAA hereby defines two acceptable

interim methods for complying with the

requirement for protection of systems

that perform critical functions.

(1) The applicant may demonstrate

that the operation and operational

capability of the installed electrical and

electronic systems that perform critical

functions are not adversely affected

when the aircraft is exposed to the

external HIRF threat environment

defined in the following table:

Field strength

(volts per meter)

Frequency Peak Average

10 kHz–100 kHz 50 50

100 kHz–500

kHz ................ 50 50

500 kHz–2 MHz 50 50

2 MHz–30 MHz 100 100

30 MHz–70 MHz 50 50

70 MHz–100

MHz ............... 50 50

100 MHz–200

MHz ............... 100 100

200 MHz–400

MHz ............... 100 100

400 MHz–700

MHz ............... 700 50

700 MHz–1 GHz 700 100

1 GHz–2 GHz ... 2000 200

2 GHz–4 GHz ... 3000 200

4 GHz–6 GHz ... 3000 200

6 GHz–8 GHz ... 1000 200

8 GHz–12 GHz 3000 300

12 GHz–18 GHz 2000 200

18 GHz–40 GHz 600 200

The field strengths are expressed in terms

of peak root-mean-square (rms) values.

or,

(2) The applicant may demonstrate by

a system test and analysis that the

electrical and electronic systems that

perform critical functions can withstand

a minimum threat of 100 volts per meter

peak electrical strength, without the

benefit of airplane structural shielding,

in the frequency range of 10 KHz to 18

GHz. When using this test to show

compliance with the HIRF

requirements, no credit is given for

signal attenuation due to installation.

Data used for engine certification may

be used, when appropriate, for airplane

certification.

2. Electronic Engine Control System.

The installation items that affect the

electronic engine control system must

comply with the requirements of

§ 23.1309(a) through (e) including

applicable amendments through

Amendment 23–53. Data used for

engine certification may be used, when

appropriate, for airplane certification.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on April

28, 2000.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–12142 Filed 5–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD05–98–090]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Elizabeth River, Eastern Branch,

Norfolk, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has revised

its proposal to change the regulations

governing the operation of the Norfolk

and Western Railroad drawbridge across

the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth

River, mile 2.7, at Norfolk, Virginia. The

revised proposal would require onsignal openings from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.

using a half-cycle draw operation and

would reduce the advance notice

required at other times from 3 hours to

2 hours. This change would provide for

the reasonable needs of navigation.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Coast Guard on or before

July 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments

and related material to the Commander

(Aowb), Fifth Coast Guard District,

Federal Building, 4th Floor, 431

Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia

23704–5004, or they may be handdelivered to the same address between

8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

Commander (Aowb), Fifth Coast Guard

District maintains the public docket for

this rulemaking. Comments and

material received from the public, as

well as documents indicated in this

preamble as being available in the

docket, will become part of this docket

and will be available for inspection and

copying at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann

Deaton, Bridge Administrator, Fifth

Coast Guard District, (757) 398–6222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in

this rulemaking by submitting

comments and related material. If you

do so, please include your name and

address, identify the docket number for

this rulemaking (CGD05–98–090),

indicate the specific section of this

document to which each comment

applies, and give the reason for each

comment. Please submit all comments

and related material in an unbound

format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches,

suitable for copying. If you would like

to know they reached us, please enclose

a stamped, self-addressed postcard or

envelope. We will consider all

comments and material received during

the comment period. We may change

this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

We do not now plan to hold a public

meeting. But you may submit a request

for a meeting by writing to Commander

(Aowb), Fifth Coast Guard District at the

address under ADDRESSES explaining

why one would be beneficial. If we

determine that one would aid this

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time

and place announced by a later notice

in the Federal Register.

Regulatory History

On November 2, 1998, the Coast

Guard published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NRPM) entitled

‘‘Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Elizabeth River, Eastern Branch,

Norfolk, Virginia’’ in the Federal

Register (63 FR 58676). We also

distributed local notice of the Federal

Register publication. We received 652

comments on the proposed rule. Most of

the comments included a request for a

public hearing, but based on the number

of comments and the issues addressed

by the comments, we determined that a

public hearing would not provide

additional information to aid the

rulemaking process.

Background and Purpose

The Norfolk and Western Railroad

drawbridge is owned and operated by

Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC).

The regulations at 33 CFR 117.1007(a)