26714 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 93 /Thursday, May 14, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

allow special combinations even if no

PFC farm is involved. This will permit

variances from normal combination

rules that would otherwise apply under

7 CFR part 718. Such variances will

allow for greater flexibility to farmers

with special needs as might arise for

tobacco-only combinations. There is a

special need for farm combinations with

respect to the tobacco program because

it is one of the few programs with an

existing farm-oriented poundage or

quota system and because of limitations

that exist with respect to the leasing of

allotments and quotas. These special

combinations allow for better farming

practices, including crop rotation and

mirror long-term practices in tobacco.

The amendments to § 723.209 would, in

addition, provide explicitly that for all

special combinations allowed under

§ 723.209, the Deputy Administrator

may waive consent requirements that

would normally apply for combinations

under the rules in 7 CFR part 718.

Under the 7 CFR part 718 regulations,

normally all of the owners and operators

of both farms to be combined must

consent to the combination. However,

§ 723.209 deals with limited and

temporary, perhaps frequent,

combinations that can involve tobacco

farms that have many owners as the

farms have been passed down among

several generations. Locating, and

obtaining a verifiable consent from all of

the owners of tobacco farms for each

such transaction can be very difficult

and is not purposeful given that the

farm will be continuing its basic

operation in a manner similar to the

way it has operated in the past.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 723

Acreage allotments, Auction

warehouses, Dealers, Domestic

manufacturers, Marketing quotas,

Penalties, Reconstitutions, Tobacco.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 723 is amended as

follows:

PART 723—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 723 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1301, 1311–1314,

1314–1, 1314b, 1314b–1, 1314b–2, 1314c,

1314d, 1314e, 1314f, 1314i, 1315, 1316, 1362,

1363, 1372–75, 1421, 1445–1 and 1445–2.

2. The heading for § 723.209 is revised

and paragraph (c) is revised to read as

follows:

§ 723.209 Determination of acreage

allotments, marketing quotas, yields for

combined farms; and special tobacco

combinations.

* * * * *

(c) Special tobacco combinations.

Notwithstanding other provision of this

title, the Deputy Administrator may,

upon proper application and to the

extent deemed consistent with other

obligations, permit farms, with respect

to tobacco allotments and tobacco

quotas, to be considered combined for

purposes of this part and part 1464 of

this title only without being combined

for other purposes. This allowance shall

apply for tobacco of all kinds and types

and with respect to all farms even if one

or more of the farms to be combined is

the subject of a production flexibility

contract (PFC) executed in connection

with the program operated under the

provisions of 7 CFR part 1412. Such

special, limited combinations must

otherwise meet the requirements of 7

CFR part 718 for combinations, except

the signature (consent) requirements of

§ 718.201(a)(2) of that part. The Deputy

Administrator may set such consent

requirements for special farm

combinations under this section as the

Deputy Administrator believes

necessary or appropriate. Further, in

any case in which one of the farms is

a PFC farm, none of the land on any PFC

farm that would have been used for the

production of tobacco can be used for

the production of a ‘‘PFC commodity’’

as defined in this section. Such

permission shall be conditioned upon

the agreement of all interested parties

that land on the PFC allotment or quota

farm that would have been used for the

production of tobacco shall not be used

for the production of any PFC

commodity. In the event that such

production nonetheless occurs, the

special tobacco combination may be

made void, retroactive to the date of

original approval. Such curative action

will likely result in a finding of excess

tobacco plantings and sanctions and

remedies, which would likely include

liability for penalties and other

sanctions for excess marketings of

tobacco. The Deputy Administrator may

set such other conditions on the

combinations as needed or deemed

appropriate to serve the goals of the

tobacco program and the goals of the

PFC. The term PFC commodity for

purposes of this section means wheat,

corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats,

upland cotton, and rice.

* * * * *

Signed at Washington, DC, on May 8, 1998.

Bruce R. Weber,

Acting Administrator,

Farm Service Agency.

[FR Doc. 98–12860 Filed 5–13–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–CE–72–AD; Amendment 39–

10516; AD 98–10–05]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon

Aircraft Company Models B200,

B200C, and B200T Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that

applies to certain Raytheon Aircraft

Company (Raytheon) Models B200,

B200C, and B200T airplanes (formerly

referred to as Beech Models B200,

B200C, and B200T airplanes). This AD

requires replacing the wiring for the

engine fire detector system with fire

resistant wiring. This AD is the result of

the discovery during aircraft production

of the potential for the existing engine

fire detector system wiring on the

affected airplanes to fail because of high

heat and/or fire. The actions specified

by this AD are intended to prevent

failure of the engine fire detector system

if high heat and/or fire stopped an

electrical signal between the engine fire

detectors and the engine fire warning

annunciator lights located in the

cockpit, which could result in passenger

injury in the event of an airplane fire.

DATES: Effective June 27, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 27,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Service information that

applies to this AD may be obtained from

the 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 No. 97–CE–72–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: Mr.

Randy Griffith, Aerospace Engineer,

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,

FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Mid-Continent

Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209;

telephone: (316) 946–4145; facsimile:

(316) 946–4407.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 93 /Thursday, May 14, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 26715

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Events Leading to the Issuance of This

AD

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to include an AD that would

apply to certain Raytheon Models B200,

B200C, and B200T airplanes was

published in the Federal Register as a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

on December 3, 1997 (62 FR 63914). The

NPRM proposed to require replacing the

wiring for the engine fire detector

system with fire resistant wiring by

incorporating Engine Fire Detector

Harness Kit, part number 101–3208–1.

Accomplishment of the proposed action

as specified in the NPRM would be in

accordance with Raytheon Mandatory

Service Bulletin No. 2701, Issued: May,

1997.

The NPRM was the result of the

discovery during aircraft production of

the potential for the existing engine fire

detector system wiring on the affected

airplanes to fail because of high heat

and/or fire.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were received on the

proposed rule or the FAA’s

determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA’s Determination

After careful review of all available

information related to the subject

presented above, the FAA has

determined that air safety and the

public interest require the adoption of

the rule as proposed except for minor

editorial corrections. The FAA has

determined that these minor corrections

will not change the meaning of the AD

and will not add any additional burden

upon the public than was already

proposed.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 77 airplanes

in the U.S. registry will be affected by

this AD, that it will take approximately

4 workhours per airplane to accomplish

the modification required by this AD,

and that the average labor rate is

approximately $60 an hour. Parts will

be provided by the manufacturer at no

cost to the owners/operators of the

affected airplanes. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of this AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$18,480, or $240 per airplane. These

figures are based on the presumption

that no owner/operator of the affected

airplanes has incorporated this

modification.

Raytheon has informed the FAA that

approximately 40 kits have been

shipped from the Raytheon Aircraft

Authorized Service Center. Presuming

that each of the 40 kits is incorporated

on an affected airplane, this will reduce

the cost impact of this AD by $9,600,

from $18,480, to $8,880.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

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

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the final

evaluation prepared for this action is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained by contacting the

Rules Docket at the location provided

under the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

98–10–05 Raytheon Aircraft Company:

Amendment 39–10516; Docket No. 97–

CE–72–AD.

Applicability: The following model and

serial number airplanes, certificated in any

category:

Model Serial Nos.

B200 ..................... BB–1439, BB–1444

through BB–1447, BB–

1449, BB–1450, BB–

1452, BB–1453, BB–

1455, BB–1456, and

BB–1458 through BB–

1512;

B200C .................. BL–139 and BL–140;

B200C (C–12R) ... BW–1 through BW–5;

and

B200T .................. BT–35 through BT–38.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required within the next 200

hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective

date of this AD, unless already accomplished.

To prevent failure of the engine fire

detector system if high heat and/or fire

stopped an electrical signal between the

engine fire detectors and the engine fire

warning annunciator lights located in the

cockpit, which could result in passenger

injury in the event of an airplane fire,

accomplish the following:

(a) Replace the existing engine fire

protection system wiring with fire resistant

wiring by incorporating Engine Fire Detector

Harness Kit, part number 101–3208–1.

Accomplish this replacement in accordance

with the instructions included with the

above kit, as referenced in Raytheon

Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 2701, Issued:

May, 1997.

(b) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport

Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport,

Wichita, Kansas 67209. The request shall be

forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Wichita ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Wichita ACO.

(d) The replacement required by this AD

shall be done in accordance with the

instructions to Raytheon Engine Fire Detector
26716 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 93 /Thursday, May 14, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Harness Kit, part number 101–3208–1, as

referenced in Raytheon Mandatory Service

Bulletin No. 2701, Issued: May, 1997. This

incorporation by reference was approved by

the Director of the Federal Register in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR

part 51. Copies may be obtained from

Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 85,

Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085. Copies may be

inspected at the FAA, Central Region, Office

of the Regional Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E.

12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri, or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington,

DC.

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

June 27, 1998.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April

30, 1998.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–12507 Filed 5–13–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

15 CFR Part 921

[Docket #980427108–8108–01]

RIN 0694–AL16

National Estuarine Research Reserve

System Regulations

AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resource Management, National Ocean

Service, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is

making a correction to its regulations

concerning the National Estuarine

Research Reserve System (NERRS) to

clarify that certain types of financial

assistance awards are not subject to

specified limits on amounts. The

Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1996

amended the Coastal Zone Management

Act (CZMA) by, among other things,

eliminating the state match requirement

in cases where financial assistance was

coming from proceeds of a natural

resource damage action. In 1997, NOAA

issued a rule to amend the NERRS

regulations to conform to the statutory

amendments. That rule specified that

the state match requirement was

eliminated in cases where natural

resource damage proceeds were being

used to fund NERRS activities.

However, the rule did not address what

the effects of other limits on financial

assistance (caps on funding, rather than

state match) would be in these cases.

This final rule clarifies that, in cases

where financial assistance is coming

from natural resource damage funds, the

caps on financial assistance to not

apply.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 14, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary O’Brien, Attorney-Adviser, Office

of General Counsel, 1305 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland

20910. Telephone: 301–713–2967.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Authority

This final rule is issued under the

authority of the Coastal Zone

Management Act, CZMA, 16 U.S.C.

1451 et seq., as amended.

II. Background

Section 315 of the CZMA authorizes

grants to states for the selection,

designation, management, and use of

National Estuarine Research Reserves.

However, section 315 of the CZMA

limits, in most cases, the proportion of

federal financial assistance that may be

provided to states for program activities.

The 1996 amendments to the CZMA

provided that notwithstanding these

statutory limits, financial assistance

provided from amounts recovered as a

result of damage to natural resources

located in the coastal zone may be used

to pay 100 percent of the costs of

activities carried out with the

assistance. In 1997, NOAA issued a rule,

the intent of which was to bring the

program regulations into conformity

with the statutory change.

Following NOAA’s 1997 rule,

questions arose as to the effects of the

amendment on certain statutory and

regulatory limits on amounts. While it

was clear the amendments eliminated

the match requirement in cases where

financial assistance is coming from

natural resource damage funds,

questions remained as to the

appropriate interpretation, in these

cases, of provisions limiting the amount

of financial assistance that may be

granted to any one reserve for certain

activities. Specifically, the statute

provides a $5,000,000 cap on federal

financial assistance for acquisition

activities at any one reserve. The

regulations contain not only that cap,

but also a $100,000 cap on federal

financial assistance for certain predesignation activities (site selection,

draft management plan and

environmental impact statement

preparation, and basic characterization

studies).

The NERRS was established by

Congress to provide for a system of

representative estuarine ecosystems,

with each site contributing to the

biogeographical and typological balance

of the system. It was envisioned that the

completed system would ultimately

contain 25–35 sites. Throughout the

course of the program, there has been a

need to ensure that limited

appropriations are distributed equitably

among reserve sites. Hence, the statute

and the regulations provided caps to

restrict the amount of funds that could

be granted to any one site.

In the case of reserve activities being

funded with amounts recovered as a

result of natural resource damages, the

concern that gave rise to the

establishment of the caps does not exist.

Natural resource damage funds do not

come out of the NERRS appropriation.

When such funds are used to establish

a reserve or pay for reserve activities,

there is no reduction in the

appropriation and thus no effect,

financial speaking, on other reserves in

the system or on states wishing to

advance reserve proposals. For this

reason, it is not appropriate to apply the

NERRS limits on federal financial

assistance when activities are being

funded from natural resource damage

proceeds.

Congress recognized as much in the

1996 amendments to the CZMA. New

section 315(e)(3)(C) explicitly stated that

notwithstanding the 50 percent/

$5,000,000 cap, financial assistance

provided from natural resource damage

funds could be used to pay 100 percent

of the costs of such activities. Congress

did not address the $100,000 predesignation cap, because that cap was

established by regulation rather than by

statute.

III. Discussion of Change

The purpose of this rule is to amend

the regulations to clarify that, consistent

with the changes made to the CZMA in

1996, the $5,000,000 and $100,000

limits on federal financial assistance for

certain activities are not applicable with

the funding for these activities is being

provided from amounts recovered as a

result of damage to natural resources.

IV. Rulemaking Requirements

A. This rule was determined to be

‘‘not significant’’ for purposes of

Executive Order 12866.

B. This rule relates to public property,

loans, grants, benefits, and contracts,

and therefore, it is exempt from every

requirement of section 553 of the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

553, including notice and comment and

delayed effective date.

C. Because a notice of proposed

rulemaking is not required by 5 U.S.C.