10480 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

guard stations surrounding the

production area. The Committee also

unanimously recommended $164,450 in

market development activities and

$88,028 in production research. Budget

items for 1994–95 which increased

compared to those budgeted for 1993–94

(in parentheses) were: Office salaries,

$22,000 ($15,600), insurance, $6,250

($5,250), accounting and audit, $2,600

($2,300), rent and utilities, $5,000

($4,000), field travel, $6,000 ($5,000),

onion breeding research, $88,028

($88,000), and $4,450 for Canadian

onion promotion for which no funding

was budgeted last year. Items which

decreased compared to the amount

budgeted for 1993–94 (in parentheses)

were: Market development program,

$150,000 ($200,000) and ($7,000) for

screening for resistance and tolerance to

purple blotch, ($2,000) for leaf wetness,

($2,600) for variety evaluation, ($4,000)

for thrips monitoring and control, and

($2,000) for the Integrated Pest

Management program, for which no

funding was budgeted this year. All

other items were budgeted at last year’s

amounts.

The initial 1994–95 budget, published

on August 12, 1994, did not establish an

assessment rate. Therefore, the

Committee also unanimously

recommended an assessment rate of

$0.04 per 50-pound container or

equivalent of onions, $0.06 less than last

year’s assessment rate. This rate, when

applied to anticipated shipments of

approximately 5 million 50-pound

containers or equivalents, will yield

$200,000 in assessment income, which,

along with $269,678 from the reserve,

will be adequate to cover budgeted

expenses. Funds in the reserve as of

December 31, 1994, were $607,767,

which is within the maximum

permitted by the order of two fiscal

periods’ expenses.

An amended interim final rule was

published in the Federal Register on

December 15, 1994 (59 FR 64557). That

interim final rule amended § 959.235 to

increase the level of authorized

expenses to $469,678 and establish an

assessment rate of $0.04 per 50-pound

container or equivalent of onions for the

Committee. That rule provided that

interested persons could file comments

through January 17, 1995. No comments

were received.

The Committee, in a telephone vote

completed January 16, 1995,

unanimously recommended an increase

of $50,000 in the funding for the market

development program, increasing

expenditures from $150,000 to

$200,000. This increase is necessary to

cover additional expenses that will be

incurred in conducting the program,

and will result in total promotion

expenses of $214,250 and a total budget

of $519,678. There are adequate funds

in the Committee’s reserve to cover this

additional expenditure, so no increase

in the assessment rate was

recommended.

While this action will impose some

additional costs on handlers, the costs

are in the form of uniform assessments

on handlers. Some of the additional

costs may be passed on to producers.

However, these costs will be offset by

the benefits derived from the operation

of the marketing order. Therefore, the

Administrator of the AMS has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

After consideration of all relevant

matter presented, including the

information and recommendations

submitted by the Committee and other

available information, it is hereby found

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth,

will tend to effectuate the declared

policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also

found and determined upon good cause

that it is impracticable, unnecessary,

and contrary to the public interest to

give preliminary notice prior to putting

this rule into effect and that good cause

exists for not postponing the effective

date of this action until 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register

because the Committee needs to have

sufficient funds to pay its expenses

which are incurred on a continuous

basis. The 1994–95 fiscal period began

on August 1, 1994, and the marketing

order requires that the rate of

assessment for the fiscal period apply to

all assessable onions handled during the

fiscal period. In addition, handlers are

aware of this rule which was

unanimously recommended by the

Committee at a public meeting and

published in the Federal Register as an

amended interim final rule. No

comments were received concerning

that amended interim final rule, which

is being adopted as a final rule, with

appropriate changes.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 959

Marketing agreements, Onions,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 959 is amended as

follows:

Accordingly, the interim final rule

amending 7 CFR part 959 which was

published at (59 FR 64557) on December

15, 1994, is adopted as a final rule with

the following change:

PART 959—ONIONS GROWN IN

SOUTH TEXAS

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 959 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. Section 959.235 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 959.235 Expenses and assessment rate.

Expenses of $519,678 by the South

Texas Onion Committee are authorized

and an assessment rate of $0.04 per 50-

pound container or equivalent of onions

is established for the fiscal period

ending July 31, 1995. Unexpended

funds may be carried over as a reserve.

Dated: February 21, 1995.

Sharon Bomer Lauritsen,

Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 95–4739 Filed 2–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–W

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 21

Replacement and Modification Parts;

Enhanced Enforcement

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of policy on

enforcement.

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the FAA’s

policy to enforce full compliance with

certain regulations on producing

modification or replacement parts for

sale for installation on type certificated

products.

DATES: Preliminary applications for

parts manufacturer approvals must be

submitted by May 30, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Production and Airworthiness

Certification Division, AIR–200, FAA,

800 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591, (202) 267–8361.

Background

In the past few years, there has been

increased awareness of, and concern

about, the use of unapproved parts on

aircraft. It is not acceptable for persons

to produce parts without complying

with Federal Aviation Regulations (14

CFR 21.3030(a)). It is the FAA’s

intention to ensure that all persons who

produce parts for sale for installation on

type certificated products comply with

the regulations. The FAA recognizes

that some producers may have relied on

previous FAA statements and practices

regarding enforcement of the rule.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 10481

Therefore, the FAA is publishing this

notice to ensure industry-wide

awareness of the agency’s intent to

enforce the regulations governing all

persons who produce modification or

replacement parts for sale for

installation on type certificated

products.

Section 21.303(a) of the Federal

Aviation Regulations provides that no

person may produce a modification or

replacement part for sale for installation

on a type certificated product unless it

is produced pursuant to a parts

manufacturer approval (PMA). Section

21.303(b) provides exceptions to this

requirement, including parts produced

under a type or production certificate

(TC or PC), parts produced by an owner

or operator for maintaining his own

product, parts produced under an FAA

technical standard order (TSO), and

standard parts (such as bolts and nuts)

conforming to established industry or

U.S. specifications. A person who holds

a PMA, TSO authorization, or PC, or

who holds a TC and produces under

that TC, often is referred to as a

production approval holder (PAH).

Under the regulations, a PAH may

engage another company (commonly

called a supplier) to manufacture all or

a portion of the part. In the case of

fabrication of complete parts, the PAH

must implement procedures to ensure

that the parts are fabricated and

inspected using the PAH’s FAAapproved quality control system. The

completed parts fabricated for the PAH

by the supplier are produced ‘‘under’’

the PAH’s approval. The PAH may

authorize the supplier to ship parts

directly from the supplier to the

customer. This commonly is referred to

as ‘‘direct ship’’ or ‘‘drop ship’’

authority.

In some cases, such suppliers have

been producing additional parts without

the direction of the PAH, and selling

them directly to others in the aviation

industry. In such cases, because the

PAH has not exercised the required

control over the fabrication of the parts,

the parts are not produced ‘‘under’’ the

production approval.

There appears to be a widespread

misconception that any production of a

party by a supplier (of that part) to a

PAH is not a violation of § 21.303(a).

Historically, the FAA did not vigorously

enforce compliance with § 21.303(a) in

these circumstances. Thus, the FAA has

been attempting to promote full

industry compliance with the rules, but

has so far met with only limited success.

By Notice 8110.44, dated September

25, 1992, the FAA chartered the Parts

Approval Action Team (PAAT) to

develop policies and procedures to

facilitate approval of PMA applications

by suppliers to PAHs. Under PAAT

Phase I, the FAA issued Notice 8110.45,

dated September 25, 1992. That notice

provided simplified procedures for the

issuance of PMAs to suppliers who

showed evidence of a licensing

agreement with a PAH. Under Phase II,

the FAA issued Notice 8110.51, dated

May 13, 1994. That notice provided

procedures for the issuance of PMAs to

suppliers who could show that their

product design was identical to that of

a part produced under a TC.

The intent of Phases I and II was to

ensure compliance with § 21.303 by

suppliers who were shipping directly to

customers outside of the PAH’s

approval, but who could demonstrate

that they were producing a part whose

design and quality control already had

been approved by the FAA.

Unfortunately, there has been

insufficient response from the suppliers,

and there continues to be suppliers

producing placement and modification

parts for sale for installation on type

certificated products without a PMA

and without direct or drop ship

authority from a PAH.

Inaction by the FAA as well as

statements made by agency officials may

have contributed to this fact. Shortly

after Phase I was issued in October

1992, the then—Director of the Aircraft

Certification Service, anticipating a

significant transition period in

approving many parts produced by

suppliers, advised FAA field offices to

refrain from directing such suppliers to

cease shipment of such parts, and to

encourage them to apply for PMAs. This

direction was widely circulated within

the industry.

Further, there are other persons (not

suppliers to a PAH) who may be

producing parts for sale for installation

on type certificated products and who

also do not hold a PMA.

The overall purpose of this new

policy is to make clear that the FAA will

undertake enhanced enforcement of

§ 21.303(a). This policy makes

provisions for a 90-day period during

which persons may begin application

for a PMA without the information in

the application being used to initiate

enforcement. During this period and

immediately thereafter, the agency will,

of necessity, devote the bulk of available

FAA resources to securing compliance

through processing the anticipated new

applications. Accordingly, enforcement

for this brief period may be constrained

by the availability of resources, and will

be focused on immediate safety

concerns. Thereafter, agency resources

will be freed to effect a balanced

enforcement posture across the board.

Note that the policy in this notice

applies only to persons who produce

parts. It does not affect the

responsibility of persons who maintain

aircraft. Under § 43.13(b), each person

maintaining or altering, or performing

preventive maintenance shall do that

work in such a manner and use

materials of such a quality that the

condition of the aircraft, airframe,

aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance

worked on will be at least equal to its

original or properly altered condition

with regard to qualities affecting

airworthiness. Persons installing parts

on aircraft continue to be responsible for

ensuring that the product will meet the

appropriate airworthiness standards.

Compliance Policy

1. Each person who produces

modification or replacement parts for

sale for installation on type certificated

products, must comply with § 21.303(a),

and is subject to enforcement action by

the FAA for failure to do so.

2. If a person who produces parts not

in compliance with § 21.303(a) applies

for a PMA as described below, neither

the fact that the application for a PMA

is filed under paragraph 3 nor the

information contained in such

application will be used by the FAA to

initiate, or be used as evidence in, any

FAA enforcement investigation for a

violation of § 21.303(a), except as

provided in this policy.

3. The person must submit at least a

preliminary application for PMA no

later than May 30, 1995. All such

applications should be submitted as

soon as possible to enable the FAA to

evaluate them, and where they qualify,

issue the PMAs as soon as possible. If

the applicant fails to pursue the PMA in

a timely manner, the FAA may

determine that the application should

be denied. If the FAA determines that

no approval can be issued for the

production of the part, the applicant

may not produce the part for sale for

installation in type certificated

products, and the applicant would be

subject to enforcement action if the part

is thereafter produced.

4. The preliminary application under

paragraph 2 must include at least the

part number and nomenclature, the

name and address of the manufacturing

facilities at which the parts are

manufactured, and the holder of the

production approval to whom the

applicant currently supplies the parts or

has supplied the parts in the past (if

applicable). The preliminary

applications should be submitted to the

appropriate geographic certification

directorate. Complete applications in

accordance with § 21.303(c) must be
10482 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

submitted by July 27, 1995. The

geographic certification directorates are:

Federal Aviation Administration, New

England Region, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, 12 New England

Executive Park, Burlington, MA

01803, (617) 238–7100

Federal Aviation Administration,

Central Region, Small Airplane

Directorate, 601 East 12th Street,

Kansas City, MO 64106, (816) 426–

6937

Federal Aviation Administration,

Northwest Mountain Region,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA

98055–4056, (206) 227–2159

Federal Aviation Administration,

Southwest Region, Rotorcraft

Directorate, 2601 Meacham

Boulevard, Ft. Worth, TX 76137–

4298, (817) 222–5100

5. If the FAA is informed through a

source other than an application, as

discussed in paragraph 2, that an

applicant may be producing parts in

violation of § 21.303(a), the FAA will

investigate and take action as necessary

and appropriate to enforce and ensure

future compliance with the rule.

6. Nothing in this policy precludes

the FAA from taking action for

violations of regulations or laws other

than § 21.303(a), or referral to another

government agency for appropriate

action.

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 17,

1995.

Thomas E. McSweeny,

Director, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–4760 Filed 2–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. NM–107; Special Conditions

No. 25–ANM–95]

Special Conditions; Modified Cessna

550 Series Airplanes; High Intensity

Radiated Fields (HIRF)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions with

request for comments.

SUMMARY: These special conditions are

issued for Cessna 550 series airplanes

modified by Elliott Aviation Technical

Products Development, Inc. of Moline

Illinois. These airplanes are equipped

with digital head-up display (HUD)

systems that perform critical functions.

The applicable type certification

regulations do not contain adequate or

appropriate safety standards for the

protection of these systems from the

effects of high intensity radiated fields

(HIRF). These special conditions

provide the additional safety standards

that the Administrator considers

necessary to ensure that the critical

functions that these systems perform are

maintained when the airplane is

exposed to HIRF.

DATES: The effective date of these

special conditions is February 13, 1995.

Comments must be received on or

before April 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on these special

conditions may be mailed in duplicate

to: Federal Aviation Administration,

Transport Airplane Directorate (ANM–

100), Attn: Docket No. NM–107, 1601

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055–

4056; or delivered in duplicate to the

Transport Airplane Directorate at the

above address. Comments must be

marked: Docket No. NM–107.

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:

Michael Zielinski, FAA,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue

SW., Renton, WA 98055–4056;

telephone (206) 227–2279.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

The FAA has determined that good

cause exists for making these special

conditions effective upon issuance;

however, interested persons are invited

to submit such written data, views, or

arguments as they may desire.

Communications should identify the

regulatory docket or 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 Docket for examination by interested

persons, 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 submit with those comments a

self-addressed, stamped postcard on

which the following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to docket No. NM–107.’’

The postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Background

On October 25, 1994, Elliott Aviation

Technical Products Development, Inc.

of Moline, Illinois, applied for a

supplemental type certificate to modify

Cessna 550 series airplanes. The Cessna

550 is a business jet with two aftmounted turbofan engines. The airplane

can carry two pilots and up to 11

passengers, depending on the exit and

interior configuration, and is capable of

operating to an altitude of 43,000 feet.

The proposed modification incorporates

the installation of digital avionics

consisting of a head-up display (HUD)

system that is potentially vulnerable to

HIRF external to the airplane.

Supplemental Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of § 21.101 of

the FAR, Elliott Aviation Technical

Products Development, Inc. must show

that the modified Cessna 550 series

airplanes continue to meet the

applicable provisions of the regulations

incorporated by reference in Type

Certificate No. A22CE, 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 Type Certificate No. A22CE

include the following: Part 25 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR),

dated February 1, 1965, including

Amendments 25–1 through 25–17. In

addition the following sections of the

FAR apply to the HUD installation:

§§ 25.1303(b) and 25.1322, as amended

through Amendment 25–38; §§ 25.1309,

25.1321 (a), (b), (d), and (e), 25.1333,

and 25.1335, as amended by

Amendment 25–41. These special

conditions will form an additional part

of the supplemental type certification

basis.

If the Administrator finds that the

applicable airworthiness regulations

(i.e., part 25, as amended) do not

contain adequate or appropriate safety

standards for the Cessna 550 series

airplanes because of a novel or unusual

design feature, 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, as appropriate, are

issued in accordance with § 11.49 of the

FAR after public notice, as required by

§§ 11.28 and 11.29, and become part of

the type certification basis in

accordance with § 21.101(b)(2).

Special conditions are initially

applicable to the model for which they