61906 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

only able to harvest 200,000 pounds. Your

indemnity would be calculated as follows:

(1) 100 acres × 4,000 pounds = 400,000

pounds guarantee;

(2) 400,000 pounds × $0.09 price election =

$36,000.00 value of guarantee;

(4) 200,000 pounds × $0.09 price election =

$18,000.00 value of production to count;

(6) $36,000.00 ¥ $18,000.00 = $18,000.00

loss; and

(7) $18,000.00 × 100 percent = $18,000.00

indemnity payment.

You also have a 100 percent share in 100

acres of pod type green peas in the same unit,

with a guarantee of 5,000 pounds per acre

and a price election of $0.13 per pound. You

are only able to harvest 450,000 pounds.

Your total indemnity for both shell type and

pod type green peas would be calculated as

follows:

(1) 100 acres × 4,000 pounds = 400,000

pounds guarantee for the shell type, and

100 acres × 5,000 pounds = 500,000

pounds guarantee for the pod type;

(2) 400,000 pounds guarantee × $0.09 price

election = $36,000.00 value of guarantee

for the shell type, and 500,000 pounds

guarantee × $0.13 price election =

$65,000.00 value of guarantee for the pod

type;

(3) $36,000.00 + $65,000.00 = $101,000.00

total value of guarantee;

(4) 200,000 pounds × $0.09 price election =

$18,000.00 value of production to count

for the shell type, and

450,000 pounds × $0.13 = $58,500.00 value

of production to count for the pod type;

(5) $18,000.00 + $58,500.00 = $76,500.00

total value of production to count;

(6) $101,000.00 ¥ $76,500.00 = $24,500.00

loss; and

(7) $24,500.00 loss × 100 percent =

$24,500.00 indemnity payment.

(c) The total production to count, specified

in pounds, from all insurable acreage on the

unit will include:

(1) All appraised production as follows:

(i) Not less than the production guarantee

for acreage:

(A) That is abandoned;

(B) That is put to another use without our

consent;

(C) That is damaged solely by uninsured

causes or;

(D) For which you fail to provide

production records that are acceptable to us.

(ii) Production lost due to uninsured

causes.

(iii) Production on acreage that is bypassed

unless the acreage was bypassed due to an

insured cause of loss which resulted in

production which would not be acceptable

under the terms of the processor contract.

(iv) Potential production on insured

acreage that you intend to put to another use

or abandon, if you and we agree on the

appraised amount of production. Upon such

agreement, the insurance period for that

acreage will end when you put the acreage

to another use or abandon the crop. If

agreement on the appraised amount of

production is not reached:

(A) If you do not elect to continue to care

for the crop, we may give you consent to put

the acreage to another use if you agree to

leave intact, and provide sufficient care for,

representative samples of the crop in

locations acceptable to us (The amount of

production to count for such acreage will be

based on the harvested production or

appraisals from the samples at the time

harvest should have occurred. If you do not

leave the required samples intact, or fail to

provide sufficient care for the samples, our

appraisal made prior to giving you consent to

put the acreage to another use will be used

to determine the amount of production to

count); or

(B) If you elect to continue to care for the

crop, the amount of production to count for

the acreage will be the harvested production,

or our reappraisal if additional damage

occurs and the crop is not harvested.

(2) All harvested green pea production

from the insurable acreage. The amount of

such production will be determined by

dividing the dollar amount paid, payable, or

which should have been paid under the

terms of the processor contract for the quality

and quantity of the peas delivered to the

processor by the base contract price per

pound;

(3) All harvested green pea production

from any of your other insurable units that

have been used to fulfill your processor

contract for this unit; and

(4) All dry pea production from the

insurable acreage if you gave notice in

accordance with section 11(d) for any acreage

you intended to harvest as dry peas. The

harvested or appraised dry pea production

will be multiplied by 1.667 for shell types

and 3.000 for pod types to determine the

green pea production equivalent. No

adjustment for quality deficiencies will be

allowed for dry pea production.

13. Late and Prevented Planting.

Late planting provisions are not applicable

to green peas unless allowed by the Special

Provisions and you provide written approval

from the processor by the acreage reporting

date that it will accept the production from

the late planted acres when it is expected to

be ready for harvest. Prevented planting

coverage will be available if contained in the

Basic Provisions.

14. Written Agreement.

Terms of this policy that are specifically

designated for the use of written agreements

may be altered by written agreement in

accordance with the following:

(a) You must apply in writing for each

written agreement no later than the sales

closing date, except as provided in section

14(e);

(b) The application for a written agreement

must contain all variable terms of the

contract between you and us that will be in

effect if the written agreement is not

approved;

(c) If approved, the written agreement will

include all variable terms of the contract,

including, but not limited to, crop type or

variety, the guarantee, premium rate, and

price election;

(d) Each written agreement will only be

valid for one year (if the written agreement

is not specifically renewed the following

year, insurance coverage for subsequent crop

years will be in accordance with the printed

policy); and

(e) An application for a written agreement

submitted after the sales closing date may be

approved if, after a physical inspection of the

acreage, it is determined that no loss has

occurred and the crop is insurable in

accordance with the policy and written

agreement provisions.

Signed in Washington, D.C., on October 23,

1997.

Kenneth D. Ackerman,

Manager, Federal Crop Insurance

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 97–30514 Filed 11–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–08–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. 141CE, Special Condition 23–

ACE–92]

Special Conditions; Cessna Model 525

Citation Jet Airplane

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request

for comments.

SUMMARY: These special conditions are

issued to Rockwell Collins, Inc., 400

Collins Road NE, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

52498 for a Supplemental Type

Certificate (STC) on the Cessna Model

525 Citation Jet airplane. This airplane

will have novel and unusual design

features when compared to the state of

technology envisaged in the applicable

airworthiness standards. These novel

and unusual design features include the

installation of electronic displays for

which the applicable regulations do not

contain adequate or appropriate

airworthiness 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 the airworthiness

standards applicable to these airplanes.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of

these special conditions is November

20, 1997. Comments must be received

on or before December 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

in duplicate to: Federal Aviation

Administration, Office of the Assistant

Chief Counsel, ACE–7, Attention: Rules

Docket Clerk, Docket No. 141CE, Room

1558, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106. All comments must be

marked: Docket No. 141CE. Comments

may be inspected in the Rules Docket
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 61907

weekdays, except Federal holidays,

between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ervin Dvorak, Aerospace Engineer,

Standards Office (ACE–110), Small

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service, Federal Aviation

Administration, 601 East 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone

(816) 426–6941.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirements

affecting flight safety, and, thus, was not

preceded by notice and an opportunity

for public comment, comments are

invited on these special conditions.

Interested persons are invited to

submit such written data, views, or

arguments as they may desire.

Communications should identify the

regulatory docket and special condition

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. These

special conditions may be changed in

light of the comments received. All

comments submitted will be available in

the rules docket for examination by

interested parties, 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 request,

must include a self-addressed and

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Docket No. 141CE.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Background

On March 26, 1997, Rockwell Collins,

Inc., 400 Collins Road NE, Cedar

Rapids, Iowa 52498 made an application

to the FAA for a Supplemental Type

Certificate (STC) for the Cessna Model

525 Citation Jet airplane. The proposed

modification incorporates a novel or

unusual design feature, such as digital

avionics consisting of an electronic

flight instrument system (EFIS), that is

vulnerable to HIRF external to the

airplane.

Type Certification Basis

The type certification basis for the

Cessna Model 525 Citation Jet airplane

is given in Type Certification Data Sheet

No. A1WI plus the following: 14 CFR

Part 23, as amended by 23–1 through

23–38, and 23–40; 14 CFR Part 36,

effective December 1, 1969, as amended

by 36–1 through 36–18; 14 CFR Part 34

effective September 10, 1990;

compliance with the Noise Control Act

of 1972; Special Condition 23–ACE–55;

and Exemption 5759 for type

certification utilizing the directional

damping criterion of 14 CFR Part 25,

§ 25.181, in lieu of the damping

criterion of § 23.181(b).

Discussion

The FAA may issue and amend

special conditions, as necessary, as part

of the type certification basis if the

Administrator finds that the

airworthiness standards, designated

according to § 21.101(b), do not contain

adequate or appropriate safety standards

because of novel or unusual design

features of an airplane. Special

conditions are prescribed under the

provisions of § 21.16 to establish a level

of safety equivalent to that established

in the regulations. Special conditions

are normally issued according to

§ 11.49, after public notice, as required

by §§ 11.28 and 11.29(b), effective

October 14, 1980, and become a part of

the type certification basis in

accordance with § 21.101(b)(2).

Rockwell Collins, Inc. plans to

incorporate certain novel and unusual

design features into an airplane for

which the airworthiness standards do

not contain adequate or appropriate

safety standards for protection from the

effects of HIRF. These features include

electronic systems, which are

susceptible to the HIRF environment,

that were not envisaged by the existing

regulations for this type of airplane.

Protection of Systems from High

Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF)

Recent advances in technology have

given rise to the application in aircraft

designs of advanced electrical and

electronic systems that perform

functions required for continued safe

flight and landing. Due to the use of

sensitive solid state advanced

components in analog and digital

electronics circuits, these advanced

systems are readily responsive to the

transient effects of induced electrical

current and voltage caused by the HIRF.

The HIRF can degrade electronic

systems performance by damaging

components or upsetting system

functions.

Furthermore, the HIRF environment

has undergone a transformation that was

not foreseen when the current

requirements were developed. Higher

energy levels are radiated from

transmitters that are used for radar,

radio, and television. Also, the number

of transmitters has increased

significantly. There is also uncertainty

concerning the effectiveness of airframe

shielding for HIRF. Furthermore,

coupling to cockpit-installed equipment

through the cockpit window apertures is

undefined.

The combined effect of the

technological advances in airplane

design and the changing environment

has resulted in an increased level of

vulnerability of electrical and electronic

systems required for the continued safe

flight and landing of the airplane.

Effective measures against the effects of

exposure to HIRF must be provided by

the design and installation of these

systems. The accepted maximum energy

levels in which civilian airplane system

installations must be capable of

operating safely are based on surveys

and analysis of existing radio frequency

emitters. These special conditions

require that the airplane be evaluated

under these energy levels for the

protection of the electronic system and

its associated wiring harness. These

external threat levels, which are lower

than previously required values, are

believed to represent the worst case to

which an airplane would be exposed in

the operating environment.

These special conditions require

qualification of systems that perform

critical functions, as installed in aircraft,

to the defined HIRF environment in

paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed

value using laboratory tests, in

paragraph 2, as follows:

(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 HIRF

environment defined below:

FIELD STRENGTH VOLTS/METER

Frequency Peak Average

10–100 KHz .............. 50 50

100–500 .................... 60 60

500–2000 .................. 70 70

2–30 MHz .................. 200 200

30–70 ........................ 30 30

70–100 ...................... 30 30

100–200 .................... 150 30

200–400 .................... 70 70

400–700 .................... 700 80

700–1000 .................. 1700 240

1–2 GHz .................... 5000 360

2–4 ............................ 4500 360

4–6 ............................ 7200 300

6–8 ............................ 2000 330

8–12 .......................... 3500 270

12–18 ........................ 3500 330

18–40 ........................ 780 20

or,

(2) The applicant may demonstrate by

a system test and analysis that the
61908 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

electrical and electronic systems that

perform critical functions can withstand

a minimum threat of 100 volts per

meter, peak electrical field strength,

from 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.

A preliminary hazard analysis must

be performed by the applicant, for

approval by the FAA, to identify

electrical and/or electronic systems that

perform critical functions. The term

‘‘critical’’ means those functions whose

failure would contribute to, or cause, a

failure condition that would prevent the

continued safe flight and landing of the

airplane. The systems identified by the

hazard analysis that perform critical

functions are candidates for the

application of HIRF requirements. A

system may perform both critical and

non-critical functions. Primary

electronic flight display systems, and

their associated components, perform

critical functions such as attitude,

altitude, and airspeed indication. The

HIRF requirements apply only to critical

functions.

Compliance with HIRF requirements

may be demonstrated by tests, analysis,

models, similarity with existing

systems, or any combination of these.

Service experience alone is not

acceptable since normal flight

operations may not include an exposure

to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a

system with similar design features for

redundancy as a means of protection

against the effects of external HIRF is

generally insufficient since all elements

of a redundant system are likely to be

exposed to the fields concurrently.

Conclusion

In view of the design features

discussed for the Cessna Model 525

Citation Jet airplane, the following

special conditions are issued. This

action is not a rule of general

applicability and affects only those

applicants who apply to the FAA for

approval of these features on these

airplanes.

The substance of these special

conditions has been subject to the notice

and public comment procedure in

several prior rulemaking actions, for

example, the Dornier 228–200 (53 FR

14782, April 26, 1988), the Cessna

Model 525 (56 FR 49396, September 30,

1991), and the Beech Model 200, A200,

and B200 airplanes (57 FR 1220, January

13, 1992). It is unlikely that additional

public comment would result in any

significant change from those special

conditions already issued and

commented on. For these reasons, and

because a delay would significantly

affect the applicant’s installation of the

system and 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

without notice. Therefore, these special

conditions are being made effective

upon publication in the Federal

Register. However, as previously

indicated, interested persons are invited

to comment on these special conditions

if they so desire.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and

symbols

Citation

The authority citation for these

special conditions is as follows:

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

44702, and 44704; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101;

and 14 CFR 11.28 and 11.49

Adoption of Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the following special

conditions are issued as part of the type

certification basis for the modified

Cessna Model 525 Citation Jet airplane:

1. Protection of Electrical and

Electronic Systems from High Intensity

Radiated Fields (HIRF). Each system

that performs critical functions must be

designed and installed to ensure that the

operations, and operational capabilities

of these systems to perform critical

functions, are not adversely affected

when the airplane is exposed to high

intensity radiated electromagnetic fields

external to the airplane.

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 Kansas City, Missouri on October

28, 1997.

Mary Ellen A. Schutt,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–30495 Filed 11–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–CE–05–AD; Amendment 39–

10207; AD 97–23–17]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon

Aircraft Company 90, 100, 200, and 300

Series Airplanes (Formerly Known as

Beech Aircraft Corporation 90, 100,

200, and 300 Series Airplanes)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that

applies to Raytheon Aircraft Company

(Raytheon) 90, 100, 200, and 300 series

airplanes. This action requires

inspecting gray, blue, or clear Ethylene

Vinyl Acetate (EVA) tubing near the copilot’s foot warmer for collapse or

deformity. If the tubing is collapsed or

deformed, this action requires replacing

and re-routing the tubing. This EVA

tubing is used on the pneumatic de-ice

indicator lines and the pressurization

control system pneumatic lines that

provide vacuum to the outflow safety

valves that depressurize the airplane.

This action is the result of several

reports of collapsed EVA tubing. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent a loss of vacuum to

depressurize the airplane cabin, which

could result in personal injury to the

door operator; and to prevent

malfunction of the de-ice indicator

system, which could cause the pilot to

immediately exit icing conditions.

DATES: Effective December 29, 1997.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of December

29, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Service information that

applies to this AD may be obtained from

Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box

85, Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085. This

information may also be examined at

the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA), Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket 97–CE–05–AD, Room 1558, 601

E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Imbler, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,

1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-