Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 40763

Notification (PPQ Form 523)(EAN) for

Karnal bunt has been issued, the grower

or seed company must submit a copy of

the EAN. A grower or seed company

must also submit to the local FSA

county office a copy of the contract

under which the wheat was grown; a

copy of the Karnal bunt certificate

issued by APHIS that shows the Karnal

bunt test results; a copy of the receipt

for the final sale of the wheat, showing

the intended use for which the wheat

was sold, total bushels sold, and the

total price received by the grower or

seed company; and verification as to the

actual (not estimated) weight of the

wheat for which compensation is being

claimed (such as a copy of the limited

permit under which the wheat is being

moved, or other verification). In

addition, a seed company that is

claiming compensation on seed

inventories must certify to FSA that the

propagative wheat was in the seed

company’s possession as of March 1,

1996.

(e) Other seed company compensation

for propagative wheat. Seed companies

are also eligible to receive compensation

under the following circumstance: If a

seed company is not able to or elects not

to sell 1995–1996 crop season wheat

grown for propagative purposes or

propagative wheat inventories in their

possession that were unsold as of March

1, 1996, the compensation rate will

equal $7.00 per bushel for private

variety seed and $4.90 per bushel for

public variety seed. Compensation will

only be paid if the seed company has

destroyed the wheat by burying it in a

sanitary landfill or other site that has

been approved by APHIS. The

compensation will be issued by the

Farm Service Agency (FSA). To claim

compensation, a seed company must

submit to the local FSA county office a

Karnal Bunt Compensation Claim form,

provided by FSA. If the wheat was

grown in an area that is not a regulated

areas, but for which an Emergency

Action Notification (PPQ Form

523)(EAN) for Karnal bunt has been

issued, the seed company must submit

a copy of the EAN. A seed company

must also submit to the local FSA

county office a copy of the contract

under which the wheat was grown and

verification of how much wheat was

buried, in the form of a receipt from the

sanitary landfill or verification signed

by an APHIS inspector. In addition, a

seed company that is claiming

compensation on seed inventories must

certify to FSA that the propagative

wheat was in the seed company’s

possession as of March 1, 1996. Claims

for compensation must be received by

FSA on or before [date 60 days after

effective date of final rule]. The

Administrator may extend this deadline,

upon request in specific cases, when

unusual and unforeseen circumstances

occur which prevent or hinder a

claimant from requesting compensation

on or before that date.

* * * * *

(i) Wheat straw producers. Producers

of wheat straw (either growers who bale

their own wheat straw or individuals

contracted by growers to remove wheat

straw from the growers’ fields) made

from wheat grown in the regulated areas

in the 1995–1996 crop season are

eligible to receive compensation on a

one-time-only basis at the rate of $1.00

per 80-pound bale or $1.25 per

hundredweight. Producers are eligible

for compensation regardless of whether

or not the straw is sold, but the straw

must have been produced under

contract. Compensation payments will

be issued by the Farm Service Agency

(FSA). To claim compensation, a wheat

straw producer must submit a Karnal

Bunt Compensation Claim form,

provided by FSA, and a copy of the

contract under which the wheat straw

was produced to the local FSA county

office. Claims for compensation must be

received by FSA on or before [date 60

days after effective date of final rule].

The Administrator may extend this

deadline, upon request in specific cases,

when unusual and unforeseen

circumstances occur which prevent or

hinder a claimant from requesting

compensation prior to that date.

Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of

July 1997.

Terry L. Medley,

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 97–20005 Filed 7–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–68–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon

(Beech) Model 400, 400A, 400T, MU–

300, and MU–300–10 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

Raytheon (Beech) Model 400, 400A,

MU–300–10, and 2000 airplanes, and

Model 200, B200, 300, and B300 series

airplanes, that currently requires

replacement of outflow/safety valves

with serviceable valves. That AD was

prompted by a report of cracking and

consequent failure of outflow safety

valves in the pressurization system. The

actions specified by that AD are

intended to prevent such cracking and

consequent failure of the outflow/safety

valves, which could result in rapid

decompression of the airplane. This

action would revise the applicability of

the existing AD to add an airplane

model and to remove other airplanes, as

well as to reference additional service

bulletins that identify the serial

numbers of affected airplanes.

DATES: Comments must be received by

September 23, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

68–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 am and 3:00 pm,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Allied Signal Aerospace, Technical

Publications, Dept. 65–70, P.O. Box

52170, Phoenix, Arizona 85072–2170.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate, Wichita

Aircraft Certification Office, 1801

Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent

Airport, Wichita, Kansas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael D. Imbler, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE–

116W, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,

1801 Airport Road, Room 100, MidContinent Airport, Wichita, Kansas

67209; telephone (316) 946–4147; fax

(316) 946–4407.

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
40764 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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–68–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–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

97–NM–68–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On August 12, 1996, the FAA issued

AD 96–17–10, amendment 39–9719 (61

FR 42996, August 20, 1996), applicable

to certain Raytheon (Beech) Model 400,

400A, Mu–300–10, and 2000 airplanes,

and Model 200, B200, 300, and B300

series airplanes, to require replacement

of the outflow/safety valves with

serviceable valves. That action was

prompted by a report of cracking and

consequent failure of the outflow safety

valves in the pressurization system. The

requirements of that AD are intended to

prevent such cracking and consequent

failure of the outflow/safety valves,

which could result in rapid

decompression of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Raytheon Service Bulletin No. 2476,

Revision II. dated June 1997. The

replacement procedures described in

this service bulletin is essentially

identical to those described in

AlliedSignal Service Bulletin 103570–

21–4012, Revision 1, dated May 30,

1995, which was referenced in AD 96–

17–10 as one of two appropriate sources

of service information. However, the

effectivity listing of Raytheon Service

Bulletin No. 2476 specify the serial

numbers of the affected airplanes and

also adds an airplane model [i.e., Model

400 T(military)] that is subject to the

addressed unsafe condition.

FAA’s Conclusions

The FAA has determined that the

applicability of AD 96–17–10 must be

revised to: (1) Include Raytheon (Beech)

Model MU–300 and 400T (military)

airplanes, and (2) reference Raytheon

Service Bulletin No. 2476 as the

appropriate sources of service

information for identifying the serial

numbers of the affected airplanes.

In addition, the FAA inadvertently

included Raytheon (Beech) Model 2000

airplanes and Model 200, B200, 300 and

B300 series airplanes in the

applicability of AD 96–17–10. The FAA

finds that these airplanes should have

been addressed in a separate rulemaking

action. Therefore, the FAA has removed

these airplanes from the applicability of

this proposed AD. The FAA also has

removed references to the

corresponding service information for

those airplanes from the proposed AD.

The FAA is considering further

rulemaking to address the identified

unsafe condition for those airplanes.

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 96–17–10 to continue to

require replacement of outflow/safety

valves with serviceable valves. The

proposed AD would revise the

applicability of the existing AD to add

an airplane model and to remove other

airplanes, as well as to reference

additional service bulletins that identify

the serial numbers of affected airplanes.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 142

Raytheon (Beech) Model 400, 400A,

400T, Mu–300 and Mu–300–10

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

110 airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD.

The actions that are currently

required by AD 96–17–10, and retained

in this proposed AD, take approximately

12 work hours per airplane to

accomplish, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts will

be supplied by the manufacturer at no

cost to the operators. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the currently

required actions on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $79,200, or $720 per

airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is 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 39–9719 (61 FR

42996, August 20, 1996), and by adding
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 40765

a new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Raytheon Aircraft Company (Formerly

Beech, Raytheon Corporate Jets, British

Aerospace, Hawker Siddley, et al.):

Docket 97–NM–68–AD. Supersedes AD

96–17–10, Amendment 39–9719.

Applicability: The following models and

series of airplanes, certificated in any

category, equipped with AlliedSignal

outflow/safety valves, as identified in

AlliedSignal Aerospace Service Bulletin

103570–21–4012, Revision 1, dated May 30,

1995:

Model of

airplane Serial Nos.

400 ........... RJ–1 through RJ–65, inclusive.

400A ........ RK–1 through RK–42, inclusive.

400T (military).TT–4 and TT–19.

MU–300 ... S/N A001SA through A091SA.

MU–300–

10.

A1001SA through A1011SA, inclusive.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise 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 (c) 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 prevent cracking and consequent failure

of the outflow/safety valves, which could

result in rapid decompression of the airplane,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 18 months after September 24,

1996 (the effective date of AD 96–17–10,

amendment 39–9719), replace the outflow/

safety value in accordance with AlliedSignal

Aerospace Service Bulletin 103570–21–4012,

Revision 1, dated May 30, 1995.

(b) As of September 24, 1996, no person

shall install an outflow/safety valve, having

a part number and serial number identified

in AlliedSignal Aerospace Service Bulletin

103570–21–4012, Revision 1, dated May 30,

1995, on any airplane unless that valve is

considered to be serviceable in accordance

with the applicable service bulletin.

(c) 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, Wichita

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate.

Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then said it to the

Manager, Wichita ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Wichita ACO.

(d) 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

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 24,

1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–20011 Filed 7–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 207, 225, 510, 514, 515,

and 558

[Docket No. 97N–0276]

Animal Drug Availability Act;

Medicated Feed Mill Licenses

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is proposing to

amend the animal drug regulations to

provide for feed mill licensing in

accordance with the Animal Drug

Availability Act (ADAA) of 1996. The

ADAA amends the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act (the act) to require a

single facility license for the

manufacture of feeds containing

approved new animal drugs, rather than

multiple medicated feed applications

(MFA’s) for each feed mill, as

previously required by the act. The

proposed regulation implements the

requirements for feed mill licensing set

forth in the ADAA.

DATES: Submit written comments on the

proposed rule by October 28, 1997.

Submit written comments on the

information collection provisions by

August 29, 1997. The agency proposes

that any final rule that may issue based

on this proposal become effective 30

days after date of publication of the final

rule.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to the Dockets Management Branch

(HFA–305), Food and Drug

Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr.,

rm. 1–23, Rockville, MD 20857. Submit

written comments on information

collection requirements to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

OMB, New Executive Office Bldg., 725

17th St. NW., rm. 10235, Washington,

DC 20503, Attn: Desk Officer for FDA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William D. Price, Center for Veterinary

Medicine (HFV–200), Food and Drug

Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,

Rockville, MD 20855, 301–594–1724.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The ADAA (Pub. L. 104–250), which

amended section 512(a) and (m) of the

act (21 U.S.C. 360b(a) and (m)), replaces

the system for the approval of specific

medicated feeds with a general licensing

system.

Prior to the passage of the ADAA, an

approved MFA was required by the act

for the manufacture of medicated feed.

The act required a feed mill to submit

a separate MFA for each medicated feed

to be manufactured by the firm. The

ADAA eliminates the requirement that a

feed mill submit a separate MFA for the

manufacture of each type of medicated

feed and instead provides for feed mills

to be licensed and allows a licensed

facility to manufacture any feed

containing an approved new animal

drug. Additionally, section 512(m)(6) of

the act, as added by the ADAA, provides

the agency with the authority, to the

extent consistent with the public health,

to exempt facilities that manufacture

certain types of medicated feed from the

requirement of a medicated feed mill

license. The ADAA sets forth the

requirements for such licensing.

The proposed regulation will require

only one facility license for the

manufacture of animal feeds containing

approved new animal drugs, instead of

multiple approved MFA’s. Furthermore,

those medicated feeds exempted from

the MFA requirement under § 558.4 (21

CFR 558.4) will also be exempt from the

requirement of a medicated feed mill

license under this proposal. Thus, the

regulation, in implementing the statute,

would reduce the overall costs of

regulatory compliance for industry.

Additionally, because of the reduction

in the number of applications that FDA

would process annually, the proposed

regulation, in implementing the statute,

would reduce costs for the Federal

Government.

The ADAA contains a transitional

provision that provides that any person

currently engaged in the manufacture of

a medicated feed under an approved

MFA shall be deemed to hold a

medicated feed mill license for the

manufacturing site identified in the

application. Such transitional license