62730 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

you plant another crop for harvest on any

acreage you were prevented from planting in

the same crop year, even if you have a history

of double cropping. If you have a

Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement

and receive a prevented planting indemnity,

guarantee, or amount of insurance for a crop

and are prevented from planting another crop

on the same acreage, you may only receive

the prevented planting indemnity, guarantee,

or amount of insurance for the crop on which

the prevented planting indemnity, guarantee,

or amount of insurance is received; or

(G) For which planting history or

conservation plans indicate that the acreage

would have remained fallow for crop rotation

purposes.

(v) For the purpose of determining eligible

acreage for prevented planting coverage,

acreage for all units will be combined and be

reduced by the number of acres of the

insured crop timely planted and late planted.

For example, assume you have 100 acres

eligible for prevented planting coverage in

which you have a 100 percent (100%) share.

The acreage is located in a single FSA Farm

Serial Number which you insure as two

separate optional units consisting of 50 acres

each. If you planted 60 acres of the insured

crop on one optional unit and 40 acres of the

insured crop on the second optional unit,

your prevented planting eligible acreage

would be reduced to zero (i.e.,100 acres

eligible for prevented planting coverage

minus 100 acres planted equals zero).

(5) In accordance with the provisions of

section 6 (Report of Acreage) of the Common

Crop Insurance Policy (§ 457.8), you must

report by unit any insurable acreage that you

were prevented from planting. This report

must be submitted on or before the acreage

reporting date. For the purpose of

determining acreage eligible for a prevented

planting production guarantee the total

amount of prevented planting and planted

acres cannot exceed the maximum number of

acres eligible for prevented planting

coverage. Any acreage you report in excess of

the number of acres eligible for prevented

planting coverage, or that exceeds the

number of eligible acres physically located in

a unit, will be deleted from your acreage

report.

Done in Washington, DC, on November 27,

1995.

Kenneth D. Ackerman,

Manager, Federal Crop Insurance

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 95–29606 Filed 11–30–95; 4:56 pm]

BILLING CODE 3410–08–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. 129CE, Special Condition 23–

ACE–84]

Special Conditions; Beech Models 200,

200C, 200CT, 200T, B200, B200C,

B200CT, B200T, 300, 300LW, B300, and

B300C Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request

for comments.

SUMMARY: These special conditions are

issued for the Beech Models 200, 200C,

200CT, 200T, B200, B200C, B200CT,

B200T, 300, 300LW, B300, and B300C

airplanes modified by Elliott Aviation

Technical Products Development, Inc.,

Moline, Illinois. These airplanes 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.

DATES: The effective date of these

special conditions is December 7, 1995.

Comments must be received on or

before January 8, 1996.

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. 129CE, Room

1558, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106. All comments must be

marked: Docket No. 129CE. Comments

may be inspected in the Rules Docket

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 conditions

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. 129CE.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Background

On September 7, 1995, Elliott

Aviation Technical Products

Development, Inc., P.O. Box 100, Quad

City Airport, Moline, IL 61266–0100,

made an application to the FAA for a

supplemental type certificate (STC) for

the Beech Models 200, 200C, 200CT,

200T, B200, B200C, B200CT, B200T,

300, 300LW, B300, and B300C

airplanes. 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

Beech Models 200, 200C, 200CT, 200T,

B200, B200C, B200CT, B200T, 300,

300LW, B300, and B300C airplanes is

given in Type Certification Data Sheet

No. A24CE plus the following: § 23.1301

of Amendment 23–20; §§ 23.1309,

23.1311, and 23.1321 of Amendment

23–41; and § 23.1322 of Amendment

23–43; exemptions, if any; and the

special conditions adopted by this

rulemaking action.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 62731

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).

Elliott Aviation Technical Products

Development, 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

required 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 previous 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 33

200–400 .................... 70 70

400–700 .................... 4020 935

700–1000 .................. 1700 170

1–2 GHz ................... 5000 990

2–4 ............................ 6680 840

4–6 ............................ 6850 310

6–8 ............................ 3600 670

8–12 .......................... 3500 1270

12–18 ........................ 3500 360

18–40 ........................ 2100 750

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 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 Beech Models 200,

200C, 200CT, 200T, B200, B200C,

B200CT, B200T, 300, 300LW, B300, and

B300C airplanes, 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 Models 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. 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
62732 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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

Beech Models 200, 200C, 200CT, 200T,

B200, B200C, B200CT, B200T, 300,

300LW, B300, and B300C airplanes:

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

November 28, 1995.

Henry A. Armstrong,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–29869 Filed 12–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

19 CFR Parts 19, 24, 146 and 151

[T.D. 95–99]

Technical Amendments to the

Customs Regulations

AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service,

Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document makes various

minor technical changes and corrections

to the Customs Regulations, in

accordance with Customs policy of

periodically reviewing its regulations to

ensure that they are current.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

part 151: William Kotlowy, Cargo

Control, (202–927–1364).

For parts 19, 24 and 146: Marcus

Sircus, Trade Compliance, (202–927–

0510).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The technical amendments

summarized below are made with

respect to parts 19, 24, 146 and 151,

Customs Regulations (19 CFR parts 19,

24, 146 and 151).

Discussion of Changes

1. The warehouse fee suspension

authorized in § 9501 of the Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (19

U.S.C. 58c(e)(6)(C)(ii)) is recognized by

eliminating the references to this fee

contained in §§ 19.2(a), 19.3(a), 19.17(a)

and 24.21(b)(2), Customs Regulations

(19 CFR 19.2(a), 19.3(a), 19.17(a) and

24.21(b)(2)). It is noted that § 19.5,

which provided for the assessment of a

fee to establish, alter or relocate a

bonded warehouse, and for an annual

operation fee with respect thereto, was

previously removed from the Customs

Regulations (see T.D. 92–81, 57 FR

37692, 37697 (August 20, 1992) and 60

FR 42431 (August 16, 1995)).

2. Furthermore, the foreign trade zone

fee suspension also authorized in

section 9501 of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1987 (see 19

U.S.C. 58c(e)(6)(C)(i)) is acknowledged

by removing and reserving § 146.5,

Customs Regulations (19 CFR 146.5),

which required the assessment of an

activation fee and an annual fee in

relation to a zone. In addition, the

references to this fee appearing in

§§ 146.6(b)(1), 146.7(a) and (b), and

146.82(a)(6) are likewise deleted, with

these provisions being amended as

appropriate.

3.a. Generally, imported merchandise

may not be opened, examined or

inspected until it has been entered

under some form of entry for

consumption or warehouse. Exceptions

to this general requirement are set forth

in § 151.4, Customs Regulations (19 CFR

151.4).

In particular, § 151.4(c)(2), under the

conditions prescribed therein, permits

an operation not amounting to a

manufacture to be performed in

connection with imported merchandise

entered or withdrawn for transportation

under bond or for exportation, provided

that the permitted operation is approved

by both the applicable Customs field

office and the Commissioner of

Customs. Customs has since decided,

however, that this approval authority

may simply remain at the field office

level. To implement this change of

policy, § 151.4(c)(2) is amended by

removing the reference to the

Commissioner of Customs. By

simplifying the approval procedure as

described, this amendment confers a

benefit upon both the importing public

as well as Customs itself.

3.b. Section 151.5(c) requires that the

Government be reimbursed for the

compensation and other expenses of the

Customs officer who must supervise a

permitted operation under § 151.4(b)

and (c). It is stated that such

compensation would be computed in

accordance with § 19.5(b), Customs

Regulations (19 CFR 19.5(b)). However,

pursuant to T.D. 82–204, 47 FR 49355,

49365, 49374–49375 (November 1,

1982), the procedure for computing the

charges for reimbursable Customs

services then contained in § 19.5,

including the compensation of Customs

officers as detailed in § 19.5(b), was

transferred to § 24.17(d) of the Customs

Regulations (19 CFR 24.17(d)). See also

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in

this matter, 47 FR 9225, 9231 (March 4,

1982). (As previously noted, § 19.5, due

to the warehouse fee suspension, was

later removed from the Customs

Regulations in its entirety.)

Accordingly, § 151.5(c) is amended by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 19.5(b)’’

and inserting in place thereof a

reference to ‘‘§ 24.17(d)’’.

Inapplicability of Public Notice and

Comment and Delayed Effective Date

Requirements, the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, and Executive Order

12866

Because the amendments merely

conform to existing law or regulation, or

simplify an administrative procedure

resulting in a benefit to the importing

public as noted above, notice and public

procedure in this case are inapplicable

and unnecessary pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B), and, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

553(d)(3), a delayed effective date is not

required. Since this document is not

subject to the aforesaid requirements of

5 U.S.C. 553, it is not subject to the

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Nor do these

amendments result in a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under E.O. 12866.

Drafting Information: The principal author

of this document was Russell Berger,

Regulations Branch, U.S. Customs Service.

However, personnel from other offices

participated in its development.