This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

57467 

Vol. 78, No. 182 

Thursday, September 19, 2013 

1To view the proposed rule, PRA, RMD, and the 

comments we received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS2011-0040. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2011–0040] 

RIN 0579–AD52 

Importation of Mangoes From Australia 

Into the Continental United States 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations concerning the importation 

of fruits and vegetables to allow the 

importation of fresh mangoes from 

Australia into the continental United 

States. As a condition of entry, the 

mangoes would have to be produced in 

accordance with a systems approach 

employing a combination of mitigation 

measures for the fungus Cytosphaera 

mangiferae and would have to be 

inspected prior to exportation from 

Australia and found free of this disease. 

The mangoes would have to be 

imported in commercial consignments 

only and would have to be treated by 

irradiation to mitigate the risk of the 

mango seed weevil and fruit flies. The 

mangoes would also have to be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate with an additional 

declaration that the conditions for 

importation have been met. This action 

would allow the importation of mangoes 

from Australia while continuing to 

protect against the introduction of plant 

pests into the United States. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 21, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Inder P. S. Gadh, Senior Risk Manager– 

Treatments, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1236; (301) 851–2018. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart—Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1 

through 319.56–59, referred to below as 

the regulations) prohibit or restrict the 

importation of fruits and vegetables into 

the United States from certain parts of 

the world to prevent the introduction 

and dissemination of plant pests that are 

new to or not widely distributed within 

the United States. 

The national plant protection 

organization (NPPO) of Australia has 

requested that the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

amend the regulations to allow fresh 

mangoes from Australia to be imported 

into the continental United States under 

a combination of mitigations to reduce 

the risk of introducing plant pests. 

On October 25, 2011, we published in 

the Federal Register (76 FR 65988– 

65991, Docket No. APHIS–2011–0040) a 

proposal 1 to amend the regulations 

concerning the importation of fruits and 

vegetables to allow the importation of 

fresh mangoes from Australia into the 

continental United States. We prepared 

a pest risk assessment (PRA), titled 

‘‘Importation of Fresh Fruit of Mango, 

Mangifera indica L., from Australia into 

the Continental United States: A 

Pathway-initiated Risk Analysis’’ (June 

2011). The PRA evaluated the risks 

associated with the importation of 

mangoes into the continental United 

States from Australia. Based on the 

information contained in the PRA, 

APHIS determined that measures 

beyond standard port-of-entry 

inspection are required to mitigate the 

risks posed by these quarantine pests. 

To recommend specific measures to 

mitigate those risks, we prepared a risk 

management document (RMD). 

Based on the RMD, we proposed 

requirements for mangoes to be 

produced in accordance with a systems 

approach employing a combination of 

mitigation measures for the fungus 

Cytosphaera mangiferae and to be 

inspected prior to exportation from 

Australia and found free of this disease. 

We proposed to require the mangoes to 

be imported in commercial 

consignments only and to be treated by 

irradiation to mitigate the risk of the 

mango seed weevil and fruit flies. We 

also proposed to require the mangoes to 

be accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate with an additional 

declaration that the conditions for 

importation have been met. 

We solicited comments concerning 

the PRA and RMD for 60 days ending 

December 27, 2011. We received three 

comments by that date. They were from 

a State department of agriculture, a 

group of State departments of 

agriculture, and the Government of 

Australia. The comments are discussed 

below. 

In order to mitigate the risks posed by 

C. mangiferae, which we consider to be 

of medium risk of introduction and 

dissemination within the continental 

United States, we proposed three 

options: (1) The mangoes be treated 

with a broad-spectrum post-harvest 

fungicidal dip, (2) the mangoes originate 

from an orchard that was inspected 

prior to the beginning of harvest during 

the growing season and the orchard was 

found free of C. mangiferae, or (3) the 

mangoes originate from an orchard that 

was treated with a broad-spectrum 

fungicide during the growing season 

and was inspected prior to harvest and 

the fruit was found free of C. 

mangiferae. 

One commenter was in support of 

these three mitigation options for C. 

mangiferae; however, the commenter 

stated that requiring packinghouse 

inspection to determine freedom from 

symptoms is unnecessary if one of the 

fungicide treatment options is 

administered. 

We consider the inspection at the 

packinghouse to be necessary to ensure 

that the fungicide treatments were 

effective. Conducting a final 

phytosanitary inspection to ensure 

freedom from pests is standard 

procedure for all import commodities. 

Overlapping mitigation measures such 

as treatment and inspection are 

characteristic of system approaches. 

APHIS requires the same mitigation 

options for C. mangiferae for mangoes 

imported from India and Pakistan, a 

policy that has resulted in no 

interceptions of the disease at U.S. ports 

of entry. 

One commenter suggested that the 

systems approach include both the use 

of a pre-harvest broad spectrum 

fungicide and the use of a broadspectrum post-harvest fungicidal dip to 

prevent the introduction of C. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
57468 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

mangiferae, in addition to packinghouse 

and port of entry inspections. 

We have determined that requiring 

both treatments is unnecessary since C. 

mangiferae has not been found during 

inspections of mangoes imported from 

India and Pakistan under the same 

mitigation measures, which indicates 

that those measures are effective. 

One commenter requested the 

removal of all mitigation measures for 

Fusarium spp. associated with mango 

malformation disease (MMD). The 

commenter stated that MMD is not 

considered a quarantine pest by the 

United States with respect to mangoes 

imported from other countries. In 

addition, the commenter presented 

evidence that MMD has been 

successfully eradicated from Australia 

and that the sole pathogen associated 

with MMD in Australia is Fusarium 

mangiferae, which is already present in 

the United States. Furthermore, the 

commenter stated that studies indicate 

that commercially produced mangoes 

are not a pathway for the introduction 

of MMD. 

We consider MMD to be a quarantine 

pest for all countries; when susceptible 

commodities have been authorized for 

importation without MMD mitigations, 

we have administratively added 

requirements for MMD. However, based 

on the information provided by the 

commenter, we have determined that F. 

mangiferae is the sole causal agent 

associated with MMD in Australia and 

that it is absent from Australia due to 

Australia’s successful official control 

efforts for MMD. In response, we have 

revised the PRA and the RMD to reflect 

Australia’s freedom from causal agents 

associated with MMD, and this final 

rule omits the proposed mitigations for 

Fusarium spp. complex associated with 

MMD. 

The PRA identified Lasiodiplodia 

pseudotheobromae, Neoscytalidium 

novaehollandiae, Neofusicoccum 

mangiferae, and Pseudofusicoccum 

adansoniae as pathogens associated 

with mangoes. One commenter stated 

that there is no evidence that these 

pathogens are associated with mango 

fruit in natural environments; all work 

cited in the PRA as establishing these 

pathogens as pests of mangoes was 

under artificial conditions. The 

commenter noted the conditions 

proposed for Australian mangoes 

require that mangoes be imported to the 

continental United States in commercial 

consignments only, which would 

remove these pathogens from the 

pathway. In addition, the commenter 

stated that the PRA only mentions N. 

mangiferae in the introduction and 

presents no evidence that this species is 

associated with mango fruit. Therefore, 

the commenter requested that 

requirements related to these pathogens 

be removed from the rule. 

The PRA addressed N. mangiferae 

and included additional references that 

document the stem end rot (SER) of 

mango fruit caused by N. mangiferae 

known to occur in Australia. The 

pathogen also has been documented 

under many synonyms (Dothiorella 

mangiferae, Nattrassia mangiferae, and 

Fusicoccum mangiferum), which may 

account for the confusion about this 

species associated with mango fruit rot 

in Australia. 

The remaining species, L. 

pseudotheobromae, N. novaehollandiae, 

and P. adansoniae, are recently reported 

and appear to have limited distribution 

in Australia. These pathogens were 

isolated from stems and twigs of mango 

trees showing dieback and canker 

symptoms in orchards, were shown to 

infect fruit in artificial inoculations, and 

were not isolated from naturally 

infected mango fruit. However, a range 

of other related fungal species cause 

SER of mango, including 

Neofusicoccum parvum, Neofusicoccum 

mangiferae, Botryosphaeria dothidea, 

and Lasiodiplodia theobromae. These 

pathogens may become established in 

mango plants without expressing 

symptoms, but stress or ripening trigger 

disease development, expressed as SER, 

cankers, and mango decline. These 

newly reported pathogens of mango 

likely occupy a similar niche associated 

with mango in which the pathogens 

switch from quiescent to pathogenic in 

the plant tissue, and may affect a range 

of plant parts of their hosts. For this 

reason, these pathogens are considered 

to follow the pathway with mango fruit 

in trade. All of these details and 

corresponding references are included 

in the PRA. Therefore, we stand by our 

determination that the conditions we 

proposed to mitigate those pathogens 

are necessary. 

One commenter requested that we 

add two mitigation options for the 

mango seed weevil (Sternochetus 

mangiferae) for mangoes from specific 

areas of Australia. The commenter 

suggests that we accept area freedom 

from the mango seed weevil for Western 

Australia and pest free places of 

production for the mango seed weevil 

for the Katherine production area of the 

Northern Territory. 

With regard to the proposal for area 

freedom from the mango seed weevil 

from Western Australia, we appreciate 

the information that those areas are 

historically free of the mango seed 

weevil and that the States maintain 

controls on the import of mango fruit 

from areas of Australia that are not free 

of this pest. We will request additional 

information from the commenter, 

specifically references from scientific 

literature, information from Australian 

scientists, and/or State records, to 

establish that the States are historically 

free of the mango seed weevil. This 

additional information would allow us 

to determine whether to recognize 

Western Australia as free of the mango 

seed weevil through the process for 

recognition of pest-free areas described 

in § 319.56–5. 

With regard to the commenter’s 

request to allow mangoes from pest-free 

places of production from the Katherine 

production area of the Northern 

Territory to be imported into the 

continental United States, we will 

evaluate Australia’s program for 

establishing pest-free places of 

production. If we determine that the 

program is effective, we will publish our 

evaluation in the Federal Register and 

request public comment. 

One commenter presented evidence 

that visual inspection to detect scales on 

the smooth surface of mangoes is 

sufficient in detecting Ceroplastes 

rubens. 

The PRA published with the proposal 

gave C. rubens a High risk rating, which 

means that mitigation measures beyond 

visual inspection are strongly 

recommended. However, we have 

recently changed the rating criteria in 

our PRA guidelines for Climate-Host 

Interaction. Specifically, we no longer 

count C. rubens’ survival in USDA Plant 

Hardiness Zone 11 towards the ClimateHost Interaction risk element rating 

because that zone comprises 

approximately 0.1 percent of the United 

States. Making this change in the PRA 

for Australian mangoes lowered the 

overall risk rating for C. rubens by one 

point, from High (27 points) to Medium 

(26 points). A Medium risk rating 

indicates that specific phytosanitary 

measures may be necessary for the pest 

unless inspection can serve as an 

effective mitigation. 

The soft scale C. rubens is a surface 

pest which is readily visible upon 

inspection, so no measures other than 

culling practices in Australia and 

inspection are necessary to remove this 

pest from the pathway. Therefore, we 

will not require irradiation treatment to 

mitigate C. rubens. 

We proposed to require mangoes to be 

treated by irradiation for plant pests of 

the class Insecta, except pupae and 

adults of the order Lepidoptera, in 

accordance with 7 CFR part 305. The 

prescribed 400-gray approved dose for 

this class of pests was necessary to 

neutralize C. rubens. Because we no 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 57469 

2The PPQ Treatment Manual may be viewed at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/

manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf. 

longer consider irradiation for C. rubens 

to be necessary, however, we are instead 

requiring mangoes to be treated by 

irradiation for the mango seed weevil 

and for fruit flies of the family 

Tephritidae in accordance with 7 CFR 

part 305. The approved dose for the 

mango seed weevil, as indicated in the 

Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) 

Treatment Manual,2 is 300 gray. 

However, if we recognize pest-free areas 

or pest-free places of production for the 

mango seed weevil, we would reduce 

the required dose to 150 gray, which is 

the approved dose indicated in the PPQ 

Treatment Manual for fruit flies of the 

family Tephritidae. 

One commenter supported the 

irradiation of mangoes for inspected 

pests; however, the commenter 

requested that irradiation of these 

commodities be conducted prior to 

importation into the United States to 

eliminate the possible risk of pest 

escape prior to treatment. 

As described in the proposed rule, we 

are requiring mangoes from Australia to 

be treated with irradiation to neutralize 

all plant pests of the class Insecta, 

except pupae and adults of the order 

Lepidoptera. In part 305, § 305.9 

specifies the requirements for the 

irradiation of imported commodities. 

These requirements provide effective 

safeguards for articles irradiated either 

prior to or after arrival in the United 

States. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, with the changes discussed in this 

document. 

Note: In our October 2011 proposed rule, 

we proposed to add the conditions governing 

the importation of mangoes from Australia as 

§ 319.56–54. In this final rule, those 

conditions are added as § 319.56–60. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the 

potential economic effects of this action 

on small entities. The analysis is 

summarized below. Copies of the full 

analysis are available on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 

in this document for a link to 

Regulations.gov) or by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

The United States produces 

approximately 3,000 metric tons per 

year, about one-hundredth of 1 percent 

of world production. U.S. mango 

production is concentrated in the States 

of Florida, Hawaii, California, and Texas 

and produced primarily for local 

markets. While U.S. mango production 

is limited, the United States is the 

world’s leading importer of fresh 

mangoes, receiving 33 percent of 

imports worldwide. 

Mango imports from Australia are 

expected to total about 1,200 metric tons 

per year. This represents approximately 

0.5 percent of total U.S. mango imports. 

The imports from Australia will likely 

help meet growing demand in all States. 

While most if not all U.S. mango farms 

and mango importers are small entities, 

it is unlikely that additional mango 

imports of 1,200 metric tons will cause 

a noteworthy decrease in mango prices 

or otherwise substantially affect the 

market, especially given the expanding 

U.S. demand for this fruit. Moreover, 

the Australian mango season, midSeptember to mid-April, is the opposite 

of that in the United States; the fresh 

mangoes imported from Australia will 

not compete directly with those 

produced domestically. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule allows mangoes to be 

imported into the continental United 

States from Australia. State and local 

laws and regulations regarding mangoes 

imported under this rule will be 

preempted while the fruit is in foreign 

commerce. Fresh fruits are generally 

imported for immediate distribution and 

sale to the consuming public, and 

remain in foreign commerce until sold 

to the ultimate consumer. The question 

of when foreign commerce ceases in 

other cases must be addressed on a caseby-case basis. No retroactive effect will 

be given to this rule, and this rule will 

not require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection burden 

associated with the proposed rule was 

preapproved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

OMB control number 0579–0391. As 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, APHIS will submit (or has 

submitted) an Information Collection 

Request for extension of this approval. 

Any new information collection 

requirements are not effective until 

approval by OMB. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, 

Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables. 

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR 

part 319 as follows: 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 319 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, and 

7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

■ 2. A new § 319.56–60 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 319.56–60 Mangoes from Australia. 

Mangoes (Mangifera indica) may be 

imported into the continental United 

States from Australia only under the 

following conditions: 

(a) The mangoes may be imported in 

commercial consignments only. 

(b) The mangoes must be treated by 

irradiation for the mango seed weevil 

(Sternochetus mangiferae) and fruit flies 

of the family Tephritidae in accordance 

with part 305 of this chapter. 

(c) The risks presented by 

Cytosphaera mangiferae must be 

addressed in one of the following ways: 

(1) The mangoes are treated with a 

broad-spectrum post-harvest fungicidal 

dip; 

(2) The mangoes originate from an 

orchard that was inspected prior to the 

beginning of harvest during the growing 

season and the orchard was found free 

of C. mangiferae; or 

(3) The mangoes originate from an 

orchard that was treated with a broadspectrum fungicide during the growing 

season and was inspected prior to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
57470 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

harvest and the mangoes are found free 

of C. mangiferae. 

(d) Prior to export from Australia, the 

mangoes must be inspected by the 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO) of Australia and found free of 

Cytosphaera mangiferae, Lasiodiplodia 

pseudotheobromae, Neofusicoccum 

mangiferae, Neoscytalidium 

novaehollandiae, Pseudofusicoccum 

adansoniae, Phomopsis mangiferae, and 

Xanthomomas campestris pv. 

mangiferaeindicae. 

(e)(1) Each consignment of fruit must 

be accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of 

Australia with additional declarations 

that: 

(i) The mangoes were subjected to one 

of the pre- or post-harvest mitigation 

options described in paragraph (c) of 

this section, and 

(ii) The mangoes were inspected prior 

to export from Australia and found free 

of C. mangiferae, L. pseudotheobromae, 

N. mangiferae, N. novaehollandiae, P. 

adansoniae, P. mangiferae, and X. 

campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae. 

(2) If the fruit is treated with 

irradiation outside the United States, 

each consignment of fruit must be 

inspected jointly by APHIS and the 

NPPO of Australia, and be accompanied 

by the phytosanitary certificate 

certifying that the fruit was treated with 

irradiation in accordance with part 305 

of this chapter. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0391) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of 

September 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–22786 Filed 9–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 23 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0650; Notice No. 23– 

13–01–SC] 

Special Conditions: Eclipse, EA500, 

Certification of Autothrottle Functions 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final special conditions. 

SUMMARY: These special conditions are 

issued for the Eclipse EA500 airplane. 

This airplane as modified by Innovative 

Solutions and Support (IS&S) will have 

a novel or unusual design feature(s) 

associated with the autothrottle system 

(ATS). The applicable airworthiness 

regulations do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for this 

design feature. 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 September 11, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark S. Orr, FAA, Programs and 

Procedures Branch, ACE–114, Small 

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, 901 Locust; 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone 

(816) 329–4151; facsimile (816) 329– 

4090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 15, 2011, Innovative 

Solutions and Support (IS&S) applied 

for a supplemental type certificate for an 

update to the aircraft software to 

activate the previously installed 

autothrottle provisions in the EA500. 

The EA500 is a pressurized monoplane 

with provisions for up to six persons 

(standard seating five people) and may 

be operated as a single or two pilot 

aircraft (reference Minimum Flight Crew 

Limitation, AFM 06–122204 Rev 4 

section 2–4). The airplane is operated 

under 14 CFR part 91 with standard 

systems installed and under 14 CFR part 

135 with additional equipment 

installed. The Eclipse Model EA500 was 

certificated under part 23 by the FAA on 

September 30, 2006 (Type Certificate 

A00002AC) with autothrottle provisions 

(i.e., motors and controls) installed yet 

rendered inactive through ‘‘collaring’’ of 

the ATS motor Electronic Circuit 

Breaker (ECB). Under the original Type 

Certification program, no certification 

credit was received nor the regulatory 

basis established for the autothrottle 

functions of the Eclipse Model EA500 

aircraft. 

Current part 23 airworthiness 

regulations do not contain appropriate 

safety standards for autothrottle system 

(ATS) installations, so special 

conditions are required to establish an 

acceptable level of safety. Part 25 

regulations contain appropriate safety 

standards for these systems, so the 

intent for this project is to apply the 

language in § 25.1329 for the 

autothrottle, substituting § 23.1309 and 

§ 23.143 in place of the similar part 25 

regulations referenced in § 25.1329. 

Type Certification Basis 

Under the provisions of § 21.101, 

IS&S must show that the EA500, as 

changed, continues to meet the 

applicable provisions of the regulations 

incorporated by reference in A00002AC 

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 regulations 

incorporated by reference in A00002AC 

are as follows: 

14 CFR Part 23 through Amendment 55 

(except 14 CFR 23.1303 Amendment 23–62), 

Part 34 through Amendment 34–3, and Part 

36 through Amendment 36–26. 

Special Conditions: 

23–128–SC for Engine Fire Extinguishing 

System 

23–121–SC for Electronic Engine Control 

System 

23–112A–SC for High Intensity Radiated 

Fields (HIRF) Protection 

Equivalent Levels of Safety Findings: 

ACE–02–19: 14 CFR 23.777(d) and 23.781 

Fuel Cutoff Control 

ACE–05–32: 14 CFR 23.1545(a) and 

23.1581(d) for Indicated Airspeeds 

ACE–05–34: 14 CFR 23.181(b), Dynamic 

Stability 

ACE–05–35: 14 CFR 23.1353(h), Storage 

Battery Design and Installation 

ACE–05–36: 14 CFR 23.1323(c), Airspeed 

Indicating System 

ACE–06–01: 14 CFR 23.1545(b)(4), Airspeed 

Indicator 

ACE–06–05: 14 CFR part 23, Appendix H, 

§ H23.5, Installation of an Automatic 

Power Reserve System 

ACE–07–04: 14 CFR 23.1545(b)(4), Airspeed 

Indicator 

ACE–08–12, 14 CFR 23.201(b)(2) Wings Level 

Stall, and 23.203(a), Turning Flight and 

Accelerated Turning Stalls for flight into 

known icing (FIKI) 

If the Administrator finds that the 

applicable airworthiness regulations 

(i.e., part 23) do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for the 

EA500 because of a novel or unusual 

design feature, special conditions are 

prescribed under the provisions of 

§ 21.16. 

Special conditions are initially 

applicable to the model for which they 

are issued. Should the applicant apply 

for a supplemental type certificate to 

modify any other model included on the 

same type certificate to incorporate the 

same or similar novel or unusual design 

feature, the special conditions would 

also apply to the other model under 

§ 21.101. 

In addition to the applicable 

airworthiness regulations and special 

conditions, the EA500 must comply 

with the fuel vent and exhaust emission 

requirements of part 34 and the noise 

certification requirements of part 36. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES