Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 16779 

Commodity to be reported 

Unit of measure 

to be used in 

reporting 

Beginning of 

marketing year 

End of 

marketing year 

Cotton—Upland—Raw, staple length 1 1/16 inches and over ........................................... Running Bales .. Aug. 1 ............... July 31. 

Cotton—Upland—Raw, staple length 1 inch up to 1 1/16 inches ...................................... Running Bales .. Aug. 1 ............... July 31. 

Cotton—Upland—Raw, staple length under 1 inch ............................................................ Running Bales .. Aug. 1 ............... July 31. 

Rice—Long grain, rough (including parboiled) ................................................................... Metric Tons ....... Aug. 1 ............... July 31. 

Rice—Medium, short and other classes, rough (including parboiled) ............................... Metric Tons ....... Aug. 1 ............... July 31. 

Rice—Long grain, brown (including parboiled) .................................................................. Metric Tons ....... Aug. 1 ............... July 31. 

Rice—Medium, short and other classes, brown (including parboiled) ............................... Metric Tons ....... Aug. 1 ............... July 31. 

Rice—Long grain, milled (including parboiled) ................................................................... Metric Tons ....... Aug. 1 ............... July 31. 

Rice—Medium, short and other classes, milled (including parboiled, brewer’s rice) ........ Metric Tons ....... Aug. 1 ............... July 31. 

Cattle Hides and Skins—Whole cattle hides, (excluding wet blues) ................................. Pieces ............... Jan. 1 ............... Dec. 31. 

Cattle Hides and Skins—Whole calf skins (excluding wet blues) ...................................... Pieces ............... Jan. 1 ................ Dec. 31. 

Cattle Hides and Skins—Whole kip skins, (excluding wet blues) ...................................... Pieces ............... Jan. 1 ................ Dec. 31. 

Cattle Hides and Skins—Cattle, calf, and kip cut into croupons, crops, dossets, sides, 

butts and butt bend (hide equivalent) (excluding wet blues).

Number ............. Jan. 1 ............... Dec. 31. 

Cattle Hides and Skins—Cattle, calf and kip, in cuts not otherwise specified; pickled/ 

limed (excluding wet blues).

Pounds ............. Jan. 1 ............... Dec. 31. 

Cattle, calf and kip, Wet blues—unsplit (whole or sided) hide equivalent ......................... Number ............. Jan. 1 ............... Dec. 31. 

Cattle, calf and kip, Wet blues—grain splits (whole or sided) hide equivalent .................. Number ............. Jan. 1 ................ Dec. 31. 

Cattle, calf and kip, Wet blues—splits, (excluding grain splits) ......................................... Pounds ............. Jan. 1 ................ Dec. 31. 

Beef—fresh, chilled or frozen muscle cuts/whether or not boxed ..................................... Metric Tons ....... Jan. 1 ............... Dec. 31. 

Pork—fresh, chilled or frozen muscle cuts/whether or not boxed ..................................... Metric Tons ...... Jan. 1 ................ Dec. 31. 

Dated: February 26, 2013. 

Bryce Quick, 

Acting Administrator, Foreign Agricultural 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–06086 Filed 3–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 21 

[Docket No. FAA–2001–8994; Amdt. No. 21– 

96] 

RIN 2120–AK19 

Type Certification Procedures for 

Changed Products 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; disposition of 

comments. 

SUMMARY: On December 4, 2012, the 

FAA published a final rule; request for 

comments (77 FR 71691) to make the 

existing regulation consistent with the 

FAA’s intent and with the certification 

practice both before and after the 

adoption of the existing rule. The 2012 

final rule clarifies what an applicant 

must show regarding a ‘‘changed 

product’’ to comply with applicable 

standards and became effective on 

February 4, 2013. We sought public 

comment on that final rule even though 

it is only clarifying in nature. This 

action responds to the public comments 

the FAA received. 

ADDRESSES: You may review the public 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. 

FAA–2001–8994) at the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

of the West Building Ground Floor at 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590–0001 between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. You 

may also review the public docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Victor Powell, 

Certification Procedures Office (AIR– 

110), Aircraft Certification Service, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 

20024; telephone (202) 385–6326; email 

victor.powell@faa.gov, or Randall 

Petersen, Certification Procedures Office 

(AIR–110), Aircraft Certification 

Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 

Washington, DC 20024; telephone (202) 

385–6325, email 

randall.petersen@faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Douglas Anderson, 

Northwest Mountain Region—Deputy 

Regional Counsel (ANM–7), Office of 

the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation 

Administration Northwest Mountain 

Regional Office, 1601 Lind Ave. SW., 

Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 

227–2166; facsimile (425) 227–1007; 

email douglas.anderson@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 7, 2000, the FAA published 

a final rule entitled, ‘‘Type Certification 

Procedures for Changed Products’’ (65 

FR 36244). In that final rule, the FAA 

revised the procedural requirements for 

the certification of changes to typecertificated products. The revision 

required the applicant to apply the 

latest airworthiness standards in effect, 

to the extent practical, for the 

certification of significant design 

changes of aircraft, aircraft engines, and 

propellers. Before this final rule, many 

changes to aeronautical products were 

not required to show compliance with 

the latest airworthiness standards. This 

final rule was needed because 

incremental design approval changes 

accumulated into significant differences 

from the original product. Also, the final 

rule was intended to expand under what 

conditions the latest airworthiness 

amendments needed to be applied to 

changes to aeronautical products. 

To clarify what the 2000 final rule 

intended, the FAA published a final 

rule; request for comments also entitled, 

‘‘Type Certification Procedures for 

Changed Products’’ (December 4, 2012, 

77 FR 71691). The 2000 final rule 

requires an applicant to show that the 

‘‘changed product’’ complies with 

applicable standards. The purpose of 

§ 21.101 is to require an applicant to 

evaluate the proposed design change 

and its effect on the product rather than 

the re-evaluation (certification) of the 

entire changed product. Therefore, 

§ 21.101 was amended in the 2012 final 

rule to replace ‘‘changed product’’ with 

‘‘change and areas affected by the 

change’’ to accurately limit the scope of 

compliance responsibility for the 

applicant. That change was also made in 

§ 21.97 for the same reason. The 

intended effect of the 2012 final rule is 

to make the applicable requirements 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
16780 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1Even within ‘‘areas affected by the change,’’ 

there may be an ‘‘area, system, component, 

equipment, or appliance’’ that is not affected. 

Section 21.101(b)(2) allows applicants to show that 

these meet the requirements of earlier amendments. 

For example, in the preamble to the final rule, we 

cited the following example of ‘‘areas affected by 

the change’’: ‘‘changing an airframe’s structure, 

such as adding a cargo door in one location, may 

affect the frame or floor loading in another area.’’ 

But even within these broad areas, an applicant 

may be able to show that certain portions of the area 

are not affected (e.g., wiring in the area may not be 

affected). As another example, if a passenger seat 

fitting is changed, the structure of the seat is 

affected, and thus §§ 25.561 and 25.562 would need 

to be addressed (and probably some other structural 

requirements). However, the seat fabric is not 

affected, so § 25.853 would not need to be 

addressed. This would allow the applicant to show 

that these sub-areas meet earlier versions of the 

applicable amendments. 

consistent with the FAA’s intent and 

with the certification practice both 

before and after the adoption of the 2000 

final rule. 

Discussion of Comments 

Two comments were received in the 

docket during the comment period for 

this final rule. The Boeing Company 

expressed concern with a possible 

increase in administrative burden of 

establishing the certification basis for 

changes it believes are significant at the 

product level. Transport Canada (TCCA) 

commented that it believes the final rule 

changes the significance of the 

assessment of the design change level 

relative to the entire product. 

Boeing provided recommendations for 

changes to the preamble to the final rule 

regarding § 21.101 and to the final rule 

in general that it believes will 

reestablish and clarify the original 

intent of the regulation and concerns 

regarding the associated administrative 

burden to applicants. The FAA has 

considered Boeing’s concerns and has 

determined that Boeing’s 

recommendations need to be further 

evaluated before adoption. The FAA 

believes the original intent of the 2012 

final rule as published is acceptable for 

clarifying an applicant’s responsibility 

for showing compliance for the change 

and the areas affected by the change. 

TCCA suggested that the final rule 

now has the unintended consequence of 

allowing a design change to be 

evaluated at an area, system, 

component, equipment, or appliance 

level only, rather than at the product 

level. TCCA further suggested that the 

final rule may lead to an interpretation 

that multiple design changes could now 

be evaluated individually for their 

significance, instead of their total effect 

on the product. TCCA believes the final 

rule will put into question the 

interpretation of what a significant 

change is and recommends that the FAA 

reconsider the rendering of the final 

rule. TCCA noted that implementation 

of the final rule may disrupt the 

harmonized implementation of 

pertinent regulations and guidance 

material. 

The FAA agrees that the evaluation of 

a proposed design change needs to be at 

the product level and considered the 

effect of the final rule as it applied to 

product level and the evaluation of 

changes. However, it appears TCCA may 

have misunderstood the purpose and 

effect of the amendment and, as a result, 

conflated two separate issues. The first 

issue is the scope of the requirement of 

§ 21.101 to show compliance. Prior to 

the amendment, § 21.101(a) required 

that the ‘‘changed product’’ must be 

shown to meet applicable requirements 

in effect on the date of application. 

‘‘Product’’ is defined in § 21.1 to mean 

‘‘aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller.’’ 

Taken literally, the scope of the 

requirement to show compliance was 

the entire product, including the 

applicant’s proposed change. In 

practice, applicants do not show that 

the entire product complies with 

applicable requirements; their 

compliance showings, and the FAA’s 

findings, relate only to the proposed 

change and the areas affected by the 

change. The purpose of this amendment 

is simply to conform the wording of the 

rule to this long-standing practice. 

The second issue is what 

requirements are applicable. Prior to 

this amendment, § 21.101(b) and (c) 

allowed the compliance showing to be 

made to earlier versions of the latest 

requirements if certain conditions are 

met. However, taken literally, these 

exceptions still required that the 

applicant show that the entire product 

complies at least with earlier versions of 

those requirements. Limiting the scope 

of this requirement eliminates the literal 

requirement to show compliance for 

areas not affected by the change.1

However, nothing in this amendment 

changes the exceptions in § 21.101(b) 

and (c) or the policies that have been 

developed for applying them. For 

example, the harmonized policy for 

determining whether a change is 

‘‘significant’’ is that this evaluation is 

done at the ‘‘product level.’’ Under this 

amendment, this policy is unchanged. 

Similarly, precisely identifying the 

scope of an applicant’s obligation to 

show compliance does not affect the 

existing requirement of § 21.101(b)(1) 

that significance be evaluated in context 

with all previous relevant design 

changes. We continue to agree with 

TCCA’s view that ‘‘the contribution to 

safety and practicality principles of 14 

CFR 21.101 are intended to target a 

measurable benefit at a product level.’’ 

The FAA finds that the original intent 

of the existing changed product final 

rule to apply to the evaluation of the 

change’s particular effect on the total 

product level is maintained with this 

final rule. This rule is consistent with 

the preamble’s goals and published 

guidance and is implemented as 

published on December 4, 2012. 

Conclusion 

After analyzing the comments 

submitted in response to this final rule, 

the FAA has determined that further 

revisions to it are unnecessary at this 

time. This determination is based on our 

finding that this final rule is necessary 

because it addresses the concern that 

the wording of the requirement in the 

2000 rule for a compliance showing was 

too broad for an applicant for a major 

design change. Again, this rulemaking 

only clarifies the original intent of the 

2000 final rule and makes the applicable 

requirements reflect the reality of 

existing practice. This rulemaking is not 

a departure from or addition to what is 

already being done by an applicant for 

a compliance showing to the FAA in 

this regard. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 4, 

2013. 

Frank P. Paskiewicz, 

Deputy Director, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–06306 Filed 3–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket Number USCG–2012–1079] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulation; 2013 

International Rolex Regatta; St. 

Thomas Harbor; St. Thomas, U.S. 

Virgin Islands 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing special local regulations on 

the waters of St. Thomas Harbor in St. 

Thomas, U. S. Virgin Islands during the 

2013 International Rolex Regatta, a 

series of sail boat races. The event is 

scheduled to take place on Friday, 

March 22, 2013 through Sunday, March 

24, 2013. Approximately 65 sail boats 

will be participating in the races. It is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES