This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

34950 

Vol. 75, No. 118 

Monday, June 21, 2010 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 984 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–09–0036; FV09–984–4 

PR] 

Walnuts Grown in California; Changes 

to the Quality Regulations for Shelled 

Walnuts 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule invites comments 

on revisions to the quality regulations 

for shelled walnuts under the Federal 

marketing order for California walnuts 

(order). The order regulates the handling 

of walnuts grown in California and is 

administered locally by the California 

Walnut Board (Board). This rule would 

require inspection and certification of 

shelled walnut products after 

manufacturing instead of before 

manufacturing. It would also establish a 

process to specify that manufactured 

products smaller than eight sixtyfourths of an inch in diameter are 

derived from walnut pieces that have 

been inspected and certified to U.S. 

Commercial grade standards. These 

changes would result in more efficient 

and cost-effective handler operations, 

and would certify the final size and 

grade of all manufactured walnut 

pieces. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

July 6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this proposal. Comments 

must be sent to the Docket Clerk, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or 

Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. All 

comments should reference the 

document number and the date and 

page number of this issue of the Federal 

Register and will be made available for 

public inspection in the Office of the 

Docket Clerk during regular business 

hours, or can be viewed at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. All comments 

submitted in response to this rule will 

be included in the record and will be 

made available to the public. Please be 

advised that the identity of the 

individuals or entities submitting the 

comments will be made public on the 

Internet at the address provided above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Debbie Wray, Marketing Specialist, or 

Kurt J. Kimmel, Regional Manager, 

California Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487– 

5901, Fax: (559) 487–5906, or E-mail: 

Debbie.Wray@ams.usda.gov or 

Kurt.Kimmel@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Antoinette 

Carter, Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– 

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or E-mail: 

Antoinette.Carter@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposed rule is issued under Marketing 

Order No. 984, as amended (7 CFR part 

984), regulating the handling of walnuts 

grown in California, hereinafter referred 

to as the ‘‘order.’’ The order is effective 

under the Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Act.’’ 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This proposal has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended 

to have retroactive effect. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. A handler 

is afforded the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. After the hearing, USDA 

would rule on the petition. The Act 

provides that the district court of the 

United States in any district in which 

the handler is an inhabitant, or has his 

or her principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on 

the petition, provided an action is filed 

not later than 20 days after the date of 

the entry of the ruling. 

This proposal invites comments on 

revisions to the quality regulations for 

shelled walnuts to require inspection 

and certification after chopping or 

dicing them into smaller pieces 

(manufacturing) instead of before 

manufacturing, and to establish a 

process for specifying that 

manufactured products smaller than 

eight sixty-fourths of an inch in 

diameter are derived from walnut pieces 

that have been inspected and certified to 

U.S. Commercial grade standards. This 

would result in more efficient and costeffective handler operations and would 

certify the final size and grade of all 

manufactured walnut pieces. This 

proposal was unanimously 

recommended by the Board at a meeting 

on September 12, 2008. 

Section 984.50(d) of the order 

provides authority for the Board to 

recommend to the Secretary additional 

grade, size, or other quality regulations 

for California walnuts. Section 984.52 of 

the order provides that handlers shall 

not change the form of shelled walnuts 

unless such walnuts have been certified 

as merchantable or meet quality 

regulations established under 

§ 984.50(d). 

Currently, all shelled walnuts are 

inspected and certified before 

manufacturing by the American Council 

for Food Safety & Quality (also known 

as DFA of California and hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘DFA’’) to ensure the 

walnuts meet marketing order 

requirements for U.S. Commercial 

grade. Following inspection, walnut 

pieces may be further manufactured by 

chopping them into smaller pieces, or 

‘‘end products.’’ Pieces smaller than 

eight sixty-fourths of an inch that are 

accumulated during the manufacturing 

process are considered a byproduct of 

this process and are called ‘‘meal.’’ 

Walnut meal is sold into the market for 

industrial use, such as in commercial 

bakery products. 

Upon passing inspection, an 

inspection certificate is issued for the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 34951 

lot of shelled walnuts, and the 

certificate number follows the walnuts 

from that lot through the entire 

manufacturing process. The original 

inspection certificate number is noted 

on the certificates that accompany both 

the end products and the meal derived 

from the original lot of shelled walnuts. 

Providing information about the original 

lot of walnuts from which the end 

products and meal were derived assures 

customers that those products were 

derived from walnuts that meet quality 

standards under the order. 

The inspection certificate specifies 

the size of the shelled walnut pieces 

before manufacturing. The size may be 

stated as ‘‘large pieces’’ or ‘‘halves and 

pieces,’’ and that information is also 

noted on the certificates that accompany 

the end products and the meal, although 

it does not accurately describe the size 

of the manufactured end product pieces 

or meal. If a customer requires 

certification of the size of a finished end 

product, the handler must obtain a 

second inspection for that product, 

which may add expense to the process. 

Currently, meal may be co-mingled 

into one output bin as it is accumulated 

from the manufacturing of several 

different lots of shelled walnuts. When 

this occurs, the certificate number from 

each original lot of shelled walnuts is 

transferred to the meal certificate. As a 

result, the certificate for one output bin 

of meal may include multiple certificate 

numbers. 

Transferring the inspection certificate 

number from an original lot of shelled 

walnuts to various manufactured end 

products and meal is cumbersome and 

creates a potential for errors under the 

current system. Currently, all of a 

certified lot of shelled walnuts must be 

manufactured at one time to ensure the 

certificate number of that lot is properly 

transferred to the resulting end products 

and meal. If, at a future date, the end 

products from the original 

manufacturing run are remanufactured 

in order to be cut to a smaller size, the 

certificate numbers must be transferred 

from the first manufactured product to 

the second manufactured product. This 

additional process of transferring 

certificate numbers to and from multiple 

end products is cumbersome and further 

increases the potential for error. 

The Board’s Grades and Standards 

Committee formed a work group in May 

2008 to investigate alternatives to the 

current inspection and certification 

process of manufactured shelled 

walnuts. The work group recommended 

changing the existing process to allow 

handlers to manufacture shelled 

walnuts into smaller end products 

without prior inspection. Instead, 

handlers would be required to have all 

end products inspected. The 

manufactured pieces equal to or larger 

than eight sixty-fourths of an inch in 

diameter would be inspected and 

certified to existing U.S. Commercial 

grade requirements specified in the 

United States Standards for Shelled 

Walnuts (Juglans regia). Each end 

product that passes inspection would be 

issued an inspection certificate, which 

would include the actual size of the end 

product. 

The U.S. Commercial grade 

requirements do not include standards 

for walnut meal. Therefore, the meal 

accumulated during the manufacturing 

process would not be inspected. Meal 

collected from multiple manufacturing 

runs would no longer be co-mingled in 

one output bin but would remain 

segregated. 

A document also referred to as a 

‘‘meal certificate’’ would be issued for 

the walnut meal accumulated during 

each manufacturing run. Because the 

meal most closely resembles the color, 

freshness, and other characteristics of 

the smallest end product produced 

during manufacturing, the meal could 

be affiliated with that end product. If 

the end product passes inspection and 

is certified, the certificate number 

assigned to that end product would be 

referenced on the meal certificate. If that 

end product fails inspection, the meal 

created during the same manufacturing 

process would be rejected and disposed 

of pursuant to the requirements of 

§ 984.64. However, the end product that 

failed inspection could be 

reconditioned, re-sampled, and 

presented again for inspection and 

certification. 

These changes would improve the 

manufacturing process by eliminating 

the need for multiple inspections for the 

same product, and would improve 

handler efficiencies by eliminating 

duplicative inventory tracking. 

Consumers would be better served since 

each finished end product would be 

certified to U.S. Commercial grade 

requirements, and accurate size 

information for each end product would 

be provided on the individual 

inspection certificates. Handlers could 

continue to assure customers that 

walnut meal is derived from walnuts 

that have been inspected and certified. 

Accordingly, a new § 984.450(c) 

containing these regulations is proposed 

to be added to the order’s administrative 

rules and regulations. 

This rule would also revise the first 

sentence in § 984.450(a) regarding the 

minimum kernel content requirements 

of inshell walnuts for reserve 

disposition credit. The sentence 

incorrectly references requirements for 

inshell walnuts pursuant to § 984.59(a). 

The correct reference is § 984.50(a). The 

sentence would be revised accordingly. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS) has 

considered the economic impact of this 

action on small entities. Accordingly, 

AMS has prepared this initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

business subject to such actions in order 

that small businesses will not be unduly 

or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are 

unique in that they are brought about 

through group action of essentially 

small entities acting on their own 

behalf. 

There are currently 58 handlers of 

California walnuts subject to regulation 

under the marketing order, and there are 

approximately 4,500 growers in the 

production area. Small agricultural 

service firms are defined by the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 

121.201) as those having annual receipts 

of less than $7,000,000, and small 

agricultural producers are defined as 

those having annual receipts of less than 

$750,000. 

USDA’s National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (NASS) reports that 

California walnuts were harvested from 

a total of 223,000 bearing acres during 

2008–09. The average yield for the 

2008–09 crop was 1.96 tons per acre, 

which is higher than the 1.56 tons per 

acre average for the previous five years. 

NASS reported the value of the 2008– 

09 crop at $1,210 per ton, which is 

lower than the previous five-year 

average of $1,598 per ton. 

At the time of the 2007 Census of 

Agriculture, which is the most recent 

information available, approximately 89 

percent of California’s walnut farms 

were smaller than 100 acres. Fifty-four 

percent were between 1 and 15 acres. A 

100-acre farm with an average yield of 

1.96 tons per acre would have been 

expected to produce about 196 tons of 

walnuts during 2008–09. At $1,210 per 

ton, that farm’s production would have 

had an approximate value of $237,000. 

Assuming that the majority of 

California’s walnut farms are still 

smaller than 100 acres, it could be 

concluded that the majority of the 

growers had receipts of less than 

$237,000 in 2008–09. This is well below 

the SBA threshold of $750,000; thus, the 

majority of California’s walnut growers 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
34952 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

would be considered small growers 

according to SBA’s definition. 

According to information supplied by 

the industry, approximately one-half of 

California’s walnut handlers shipped 

merchantable walnuts valued under 

$7,000,000 during the 2008–09 

marketing year and would therefore be 

considered small handlers according to 

the SBA definition. The firm that 

currently inspects and certifies shelled 

walnuts before manufacturing would 

likely be considered a large agricultural 

business firm. 

This rule would amend § 984.450 of 

the order’s administrative rules and 

regulations by adding a new paragraph 

(c) that would require inspection and 

certification of shelled walnuts after 

manufacturing instead of before 

manufacturing, and would establish a 

process for specifying that walnut meal 

is derived from manufactured walnut 

pieces that have been inspected and 

certified to U.S. Commercial grade 

standards. This would result in more 

efficient and cost-effective handler 

operations, and would certify the final 

size and grade of all manufactured 

walnut pieces. Authority for these 

changes are provided in §§ 984.50(d) 

and 984.52 of the order. 

Regarding the impact of the proposed 

action on affected entities, this rule 

should not impose any additional costs. 

It should reduce costs to handlers by 

streamlining and improving the 

production process. Handlers would no 

longer need to track lots of shelled 

walnuts through the manufacturing 

process in order to tie those original lots 

to the manufactured end products and 

meal. Handlers would be able to more 

easily manage inventory and production 

since they would no longer be required 

to manufacture an entire lot of shelled 

walnuts at one time in order to transfer 

the certificate number of the original lot 

to each end product and the meal. Since 

handlers would no longer be required to 

transfer certificate numbers from an 

entire lot of shelled walnuts to multiple 

manufactured end products, a portion of 

a lot could be held for manufacturing or 

remanufacturing at a later date. 

The potential for errors would be 

reduced under the proposed system 

because fewer certificate numbers 

would be transferred. Each end product 

would have its own certificate number, 

and the certificate number of the 

smallest end product would be 

referenced on the meal certificate for the 

meal that was accumulated during the 

same manufacturing process. 

Handler costs would also be reduced 

when customers require manufactured 

product to be certified to U.S. 

Commercial grade requirements since 

this would be automatically provided 

under the proposed regulations. Under 

the current system, if a customer 

requires this type of certification after 

manufacturing, handlers may pay 

additional fees if an inspector makes a 

special trip to perform a second 

inspection. If a DFA inspector is already 

onsite at a handler’s facility, there is no 

additional charge for a second 

inspection. DFA charges $28.00 per 

hour with a four-hour minimum charge 

for a special visit to the handler’s site, 

for a minimum total charge of $112 per 

visit. 

While discussing this proposed 

change, the Board considered lab testing 

the meal as an alternative to transferring 

the inspection certificate number of the 

smallest manufactured end product to 

the meal. There is no U.S. Commercial 

grade standard for meal, so it is not 

currently possible to inspect and certify 

it as meeting a standard. Quality 

standards for meal would need to be 

developed in order to pursue this 

alternative. In addition, lab testing the 

meal could increase handler costs. This 

alternative would also cause a delay in 

shipping in order to allow time for lab 

testing, and this could adversely impact 

marketing efforts. As a result, lab testing 

of meal was not considered a viable 

alternative. 

This proposed rule would not impose 

any additional reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements on either 

small or large walnut handlers. As with 

all Federal marketing order programs, 

reports and forms are periodically 

reviewed to reduce information 

requirements and duplication by 

industry and public sector agencies. 

AMS is committed to complying 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. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with this proposed rule. 

In addition, the Board’s meeting on 

September 12, 2008, when this action 

was considered, was widely publicized 

throughout the walnut industry. This 

issue was also deliberated at a Grades 

and Standards Committee meeting on 

May 20, 2008; a Board meeting on May 

28, 2008; and a Grades and Standards 

Committee work group meeting on 

September 2, 2008. Like all Board 

meetings, these meetings were public 

meetings, and all interested persons 

were invited to attend the meetings and 

participate in deliberations on all issues. 

Finally, interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on this proposed rule, 

including the regulatory and 

informational impacts of this action on 

small businesses. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplate

Data.do?template=TemplateN&page=

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Antoinette 

Carter at the previously mentioned 

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

A 15-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. Fifteen days is deemed 

appropriate because the proposed 

changes would improve handler and 

program operations and, as such, should 

be available as soon as possible during 

the marketing year, if adopted. All 

written comments timely received will 

be considered before a final 

determination is made on this matter. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 984 

Marketing agreements, Nuts, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Walnuts. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 984 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 984—WALNUTS GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 984 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

§ 984.450 [Amended] 

2. Section 984.450 is amended by 

revising the first sentence in paragraph 

(a) and adding a new paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 984.450 Grade and size regulations. 

(a) Minimum kernel content 

requirements for inshell walnuts for 

reserve disposition credit. For purposes 

of §§ 984.54 and 984.56, no lot of inshell 

walnuts may be held, exported, or 

disposed of for use by governmental 

agencies or charitable institutions 

unless it meets the minimum 

requirements for merchantable inshell 

walnuts effective pursuant to 

§ 984.50(a). * * * 

* * * * * 

(c) Inspection and certification of 

shelled walnuts that are manufactured 

into products. For purposes of 

§§ 984.50(d) and 984.52(c), shelled 

walnuts may be cut or diced without 

prior inspection and certification: 

Provided, That the end product, except 

for walnut meal, is inspected and 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 34953 

certified. For purposes of this section, 

end product shall be defined as walnut 

pieces equal to or larger than eight sixtyfourths of an inch in diameter. Walnut 

meal shall be defined as walnut pieces 

smaller than eight sixty-fourths of an 

inch in diameter. 

(1) End product. End product must be 

sized, inspected and certified, and the 

size must be noted on the inspection 

certificate. The end product quality 

must be equal to or better than the 

minimum requirements of U.S. 

Commercial grade as defined in the 

United States Standards for Shelled 

Walnuts (Juglans regia). 

(2) Walnut meal. Walnut meal that is 

accumulated during the cutting or 

dicing of shelled walnuts to create end 

product must be presented with the 

smallest end product from that 

manufacturing run that is inspected and 

certified. If the end product meets the 

applicable U.S. Commercial grade 

requirements, the walnut meal 

accumulated during the manufacture of 

that end product shall be identified and 

referenced on a separate meal certificate 

as ‘‘meal derived from walnut pieces 

that meet U.S. Commercial grade 

requirements.’’ The certificate number of 

the smallest end product will be 

referenced on the meal certificate. 

(3) Failed lots. If the end product fails 

to meet applicable U.S. Commercial 

grade requirements, the end product 

may be reconditioned, re-sampled, 

inspected again, and certified. However, 

the walnut meal accumulated during the 

manufacture of that end product shall 

be rejected and disposed of pursuant to 

the requirements of § 984.64. 

Dated: June 11, 2010. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–14845 Filed 6–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 21 

Existence of Proposed Airworthiness 

Design Standards for Acceptance 

Under the Primary Category Rule; 

Orlando Helicopter Airways (OHA), 

Inc., Models Cessna 172I, 172K, 172L, 

and 172M 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

existence of and requests comments on 

the proposed airworthiness design 

standards for acceptance of the OHA, 

Inc., Models Cessna 172I, 172K, 172L, 

and 172M airplanes under the 

regulations for primary category aircraft. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 21, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Send all comments to the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

Standards Office, Small Airplane 

Directorate (ACE–111), Aircraft 

Certification Service, 901 Locust Street, 

Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Leslie B. Taylor, Aerospace Engineer, 

Standards Office (ACE–111), Small 

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, FAA; telephone 

number (816) 329–4134, fax number 

(816) 329–4090, e-mail at 

leslie.b.taylor@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any 

person may obtain a copy of this 

information by contacting the person 

named above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Comments Invited 

We invite interested parties to submit 

comments on the proposed 

airworthiness standards to the address 

specified above. Commenters must 

identify the OHA Models Cessna 172I, 

172K, 172L, and 172M and submit 

comments to the address specified 

above. The FAA will consider all 

communications received on or before 

the closing date before issuing the final 

acceptance. The proposed airworthiness 

design standards and comments 

received may be inspected at the FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, Standards Office 

(ACE–110), 901 Locust Street, Room 

301, Kansas City, MO 64106, between 

the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. 

weekdays, except Federal holidays. 

Background 

The ‘‘primary’’ category for aircraft 

was created specifically for the simple, 

low performance personal aircraft. 

Section 21.17(f) provides a means for 

applicants to propose airworthiness 

standards for their particular primary 

category aircraft. The FAA procedure 

establishing appropriate airworthiness 

standards includes reviewing and 

possibly revising the applicant’s 

proposal, publication of the submittal in 

the Federal Register for public review 

and comment, and addressing the 

comments. After all necessary revisions, 

the standards are published as approved 

FAA airworthiness standards. 

Accordingly, the applicant, OHA, 

Inc., has submitted a request to the FAA 

to include the following: 

Proposed Airworthiness Standards for 

Acceptance Under the Primary 

Category Rule 

For All Airplane Modifications and the 

Powerplant Installation 

Part 3 of the Civil Air regulations 

(CAR 3), effective November 1, 1949, as 

amended by 3–1 through 3–12, except 

for § 3.415, Engines and § 3.416(a), 

Propellers; and 14 CFR part 23, 

§§ 23.603, 23.863, 23.907, 23.961, 

23.1322 and 23.1359 (latest 

amendments through Amendment 23– 

59) as applicable to these airplanes. 

For Engine Assembly Certification 

Joint Aviation Requirements 22 (JAR 

22), ‘‘Sailplanes and Powered 

Sailplanes,’’ Change 5, dated October 28, 

1995, Subpart H only. 

For Propeller Certification 

14 CFR part 35 as amended through 

35–8 except § 35.1 (or a propeller with 

an FAA type certificate may be used). 

For Noise Standards 

14 CFR part 36, Amendment 36–28, 

Appendix G. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 

14, 2010. 

Sandra J. Campbell, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–14975 Filed 6–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0463; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–CE–021–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; GA 8 Airvan 

(Pty) Ltd Models GA8 and GA8–TC320 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above that would revise 

an existing AD. This proposed AD 

results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: Inspection of a high time 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS