34420 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(b) Handlers may divert excess

cranberries in the outlets listed in

paragraph (a) of this section only if they

meet the diversion requirements

specified in § 929.61(c).

§ 929.107 [Amended]

5. In § 929.107, paragraphs (a) and (c)

are amended by removing the number

‘‘15’’ and adding in its place the number

‘‘50’’.

6. Section 929.125 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 929.125 Committee review procedures.

Growers may request, and the

Committee may grant, a review of

determinations made by the Committee

pursuant to section 929.48, in

accordance with the following

procedures: (a) If a grower is dissatisfied with a

determination made by the Committee

which affects such grower, the grower

may submit to the Committee within 30

days after receipt of the Committee’s

determination of sales history, a request

for a review by an appeals

subcommittee composed of two

independent and two cooperative

representatives, as well as a public

member. Such appeals subcommittee

shall be appointed by the Chairman of

the Committee. Such grower may

forward with the request any pertinent

material for consideration of such

grower’s appeal. (b) The subcommittee shall review the

information submitted by the grower

and render a decision within 30 days of

receipt of such appeal. The

subcommittee shall notify the grower of

its decision, accompanied by the

reasons for its conclusions and findings. (c) If the grower is not satisfied with

the subcommittee’s decision, the grower

may further appeal to the full

Committee. The grower must submit its

written argument to the Committee

along with any pertinent information for

the Committee’s review within 15 days

after notification of the subcommittee’s

decision. The Committee shall respond

within 15 days of the receipt of the

grower’s appeal. The Committee shall

inform the grower of its decision,

accompanied by the reasons for its

decision.

(d) The grower may further appeal to

the Secretary, within 15 days after

notification of the Committee’s findings,

if such grower is not satisfied with the

Committee’s decision. The Committee

shall forward a file with all pertinent

information related to the grower’s

appeal. The Secretary shall inform the

grower and all interested parties of the

Secretary’s decision. All decisions by

the Secretary are final. 7. A new § 929.148 is added to read

as follows:

§ 929.148 State average yield.

The State average yield pursuant to

section 929.48(a)(5)(ii) is defined as the

yield per State for the year 1997 or the

best four years out of the last six years

whichever is greater. However, if the

estimated commercial sales are greater

than the volume computed by this

method, the Committee will use the

grower’s estimated commercial sales.

8. A new § 929.149 is added to read

as follows:

§ 929.149 Determination of sales history.

A sales history for each grower shall

be computed by using the sales in the

highest one of the most recent six

seasons of sales. For a grower with less

than six seasons of sales, the sales

history shall be computed using the

highest sales season. Sales history for a

grower with no previous sales will be

computed according to § 929.48 of the

order.

9. A new § 929.158 is added to read

as follows:

§ 929.158 Exemptions.

Sales of organic and fresh cranberries

shall be exempt from volume regulation

provisions. Handlers shall qualify for

such exemption by filing the amount of

fresh or organic cranberry sales on the

grower acquisition listing form. In order

to receive an exemption for organic

cranberry sales, such cranberries must

be certified as such by a third party

organic certifying organization

acceptable to the Committee.

10. A new § 929.250 is added to read

as follows:

Option 1

§ 929.250 Marketable quantity and

allotment percentage for the 2000–2001

crop year.

The marketable quantity for the 2000–

2001 crop year is set at 5.4 million

barrels and the allotment percentage is

designated at 85 percent.

Option 2

§ 929.250 Marketable quantity and

allotment percentage for the 2000–2001

crop year.

The marketable quantity for the 2000–

2001 crop year is set at 5.4 million

barrels and the allotment percentage is

designated at 71 percent.

Option 3

§ 929.250 Marketable quantity and

allotment percentage for the 2000–2001

crop year.

The marketable quantity for the 2000–

2001 crop year is set at 6.46 million

barrels and the allotment percentage is

designated at 85 percent.

Dated: May 24, 2000.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–13467 Filed 5–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–260–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 777–200 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Boeing Model 777–200 series airplanes,

that currently requires a one-time

inspection to determine the serial

numbers of various switch modules on

the overhead panel and control stand,

and replacement of switch modules

with new, improved modules. The

existing AD also requires repetitive tests

of the cargo fire extinguishing system,

and one-time tests of the fuel crossfeed

valve, pack, trim air, and alternate flap

control switches; and repair or

replacement of switch modules with

new improved modules, if necessary.

This action would revise the

applicability of the existing AD. This

action also would require replacement

of the existing switch modules with new

switch modules; replacement of the

existing module assemblies with new

module assemblies; or reworked module

assemblies; as applicable. This proposal

is prompted by the FAA’s determination

that certain switches are susceptible to

contamination. The actions specified by

the proposed AD are intended to

minimize contamination of the switch

contacts and consequent failure of the

switches, which, if not corrected, could

result in inability of the flight crew to

activate the cargo fire extinguishing,

fuel, air conditioning, and alternate flap

systems.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

260–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules 34421

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington

98124–2207. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mohamed Jamil, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130S, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Seattle Aircraft Certification

Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2677; fax (425) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 97–NM–260–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.

97–NM–260–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On October 2, 1996, the FAA issued

AD 96–20–01, amendment 39–9767 (61

FR 53035, dated October 10, 1996),

applicable to certain Boeing Model 777–

200 series airplanes, to require a onetime inspection to determine the serial

numbers of various switch modules on

the overhead panel and control stand,

and replacement of switch modules

with new, improved modules. This AD

also requires repetitive tests of the cargo

fire extinguishing system, and one-time

tests of the fuel crossfeed valve, pack,

trim air, and alternate flap control

switches; and repair or replacement of

switch modules with new improved

modules, if necessary.

That action was prompted by a report

indicating that the flight crew received

a warning of fire in the forward cargo

compartment during flight; later

inspection revealed that the metered fire

bottles failed to discharge possibly due

to contamination in the arming switch

of the cargo fire extinguishing system.

The requirements of that AD are

intended to minimize contamination of

the switch contacts and consequent

failure of the switches, which, if not

corrected, could result in inability of the

flight crew to activate the cargo fire

extinguishing, fuel, air conditioning,

and alternate flap systems.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

In the preamble to AD 96–20–01, the

FAA specified that the actions required

by that AD were considered to be

interim action. The FAA indicated that

it may consider further rulemaking to

address other switches that may be

susceptible to contamination. The FAA

has determined that further rulemaking

action is indeed necessary; this

proposed AD follows from that

determination.

Since the issuance of AD 96–20–01,

the FAA has determined that certain

switches, including the ten switches

previously replaced in accordance with

AD 96–20–01, are susceptible to the

contamination as a result of particles

originating from a component internal

to the switches (as discussed in the

preamble of AD 96–20–01). Such

contamination could result in the failure

of the switches and consequent inability

of the flight crew to activate the cargo

fire extinguishing, fuel, air conditioning,

and alternate flap systems. In addition,

analysis indicates that the functional

tests required by AD 96–20–01 do not

provide any additional increase in

safety. Therefore, this proposed AD

would eliminate the repetitive

functional tests of the cargo fire

extinguishing system previously

required by AD 96–20–01.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–

31A0019, Revision 4, dated April 27,

2000, which describes procedures for

replacing the switch modules in certain

pushbutton switches in the flight

compartment with new, improved

switch modules. Operators would have

the option of choosing one of the

following methods for replacing the

switch modules:

• Method I: Replacement of the

existing switch modules with new

switch modules (including changing the

part number of the reworked module

assemblies and control stand assembly).

• Method II: Replacement of the

existing switch modules with new

switch modules, and replacement of

existing module assemblies with new

module assemblies or reworked module

assemblies (including changing the part

number of the control stand assembly).

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletin is

intended to adequately address the

identified unsafe condition.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

supersede AD 96–20–01 to require

accomplishment of the actions specified

in the service bulletin described

previously. The proposed AD also

would revise the applicability of the

existing AD to include additional

airplanes that are subject to the

identified unsafe condition.

Explanation of Change Made to

Applicability Statement

Operators should note that the

applicability of the proposal differs from

the applicability of AD 96–20–01. The

applicability has been revised to include

additional airplanes (i.e., line positions

41 through 85 inclusive) that are subject

to the identified unsafe condition of this

AD.

Operators also should note that the

applicability of AD 96–20–01 identified

the affected airplanes by ‘‘line

positions.’’ The terminology ‘‘line

positions’’ refers to airplane line

numbers, rather than the manufacturer’s

tracking numbers for production

airplanes. To clarify the affected

airplanes, the applicability of this AD

has been revised to identify those

airplanes by ‘‘line numbers.’’

34422 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Cost Impact

There are approximately 85 airplanes

of the affected design in the worldwide

fleet. The FAA estimates that 23

airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 20 work

hours (for Method I) or 9 work hours

(for Method II) per airplane to

accomplish the proposed replacement,

at an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Required parts would cost

approximately $12,785 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the proposed requirements of this AD

on U.S. operators is estimated to be

$321,655, or $13,985 per airplane (for

Method I), or $306,475, or $13,325 per

airplane (for Method II).

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the current or proposed requirements of

this AD action, and that no operator

would accomplish those actions in the

future if this AD were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would 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

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

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

promulgated, 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 draft

regulatory 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, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 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

removing amendment 39–9767 (61 FR

53035, dated October 10, 1996), and by

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD), to read as follows:

Boeing: Docket 97–NM–260–AD. Supersedes

AD 96–20–01, Amendment 39–9767.

Applicability: Model 777–200 series

airplanes, line numbers 1 through 85

inclusive, certificated in any category.

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 (d)(1) 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 as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To minimize contamination of the switch

contacts and consequent failure of the

switches, which, if not corrected, could

result in inability of the flight crew to

activate the cargo fire extinguishing, fuel, air

conditioning, and alternate flap systems,

accomplish the following:

Replacement and Reidentification

(a) For Groups 1 and 2 airplanes identified

in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–

31A0019, Revision 4, dated April 27, 2000,

except as provided in paragraph (b) of this

AD, within 12 months after the effective date

of this AD, perform the actions in either

paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD.

(1) Replace the existing switch modules

with new switch modules (including

changing the part number of the reworked

module assemblies and control stand

assembly) in accordance with Method I of the

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 777–31A0019, Revision 4,

dated April 27, 2000.

(2) Replace the existing switch modules

with new switch modules, and replace the

existing module assemblies with new module

assemblies or reworked module assemblies

(including changing the part number of the

control stand assembly), in accordance with

Method II of the Accomplishment

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin

777–31A0019, Revision 4, dated April 27,

2000.

Note 2: Replacements accomplished prior

to the effective date of this AD in accordance

with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–

31A0019, Initial Release, dated October 2,

1997; Revision 1, dated March 12, 1998;

Revision 2, dated March 25, 1999; or

Revision 3, dated January 27, 2000; are

acceptable for compliance with the

requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)

of this AD.

(b) For Group 2 airplanes identified in

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777–31A0019,

Revision 4, dated April 27, 2000, on which

a guarded toggle passenger oxygen switch has

been installed: Accomplishment of the

actions specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and

(a)(2) of this AD is not required for the

passenger oxygen switch or window heat/

emergency light module assembly.

Spares

(c) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install on any airplane, any part

listed in the ‘‘Existing Part Number’’ column

of the table listed in paragraph II.D.,

‘‘Existing Parts Accountability,’’ of Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin 777–31A0019,

Revision 4, dated April 27, 2000.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(d)(1) An alternative method of compliance

or adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance

approved previously in accordance with AD

96–20–01, amendment 39–9767, are not

considered to be approved as alternative

methods of compliance with this AD.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(e) 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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23,

2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–13450 Filed 5–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U