43956 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

peanuts slowed. For that reason, on

April 22, 1986, the policy was changed

to a minimum price of $400 per ton and

this level has remained in effect for 12

consecutive years.

A world price method of establishing

the minimum export edible sales price

could be ideal for capturing the effects

of change in supply and demand in the

world market. However, a lack of data

for calculating world prices could limit

USDA’s ability to accurately capture the

world price.

Comments on absolute levels for the

minimum export sales price and the

method of calculating the price are

being sought. Comments should address

whether USDA should continue to

announce an absolute number, or

should a formula be used, or should an

absolute number be used in

combination with a formula. If a

formula is recommended, comments

should address what components

should be included and how should the

components be weighed.

Following the receipt of comments, a

proposed rule for the 1998 crop and for

subsequent crops, if deemed

appropriate, will be issued which will

allow for additional comment.

Comments are sought in particular on

the following questions:

(1) Should the minimum CCC sales

price for additional peanuts to be sold

from the price support loan inventory

for export edible use from the 1998 and

future crops be changed?

(2) Should the $400 per st level that

has been in effect since 1986 be

changed?

(3) Should USDA switch to a formula

to determine the minimum price for

additional loan peanuts sold for export

edible use?

(4) Should the formula be based on a

set percentage of the weighted average

contract price for additional peanuts for

the current year?

(5) Should the formula be based on a

set percentage of the world price of

peanuts converted to a ‘‘Farmer Stock

Basis’?

(6) Should a formula and absolute

number both be used for setting the

export edible sales price?

(7) Should the formula be based on a

combination of contract prices and the

world price for peanuts, and if so, what

weight should contract additional prices

and world peanut prices be given in the

formula?

Signed at Washington, DC, on August 7,

1997.

Bruce R. Weber,

Acting Executive Vice President, Commodity

Credit Corporation.

[FR Doc. 97–21795 Filed 8–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–CE–34–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Aerospace

Technologies of Australia Pty Ltd.

(Formerly Government Aircraft

Factory) Models N22B, N22S, and

N24A Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD) that would apply to Aerospace

Technologies of Australia Pty Ltd.

(ASTA) Models N22B, N22S, and N24A

airplanes. The proposed action would

require repetitively inspecting the aft

wing break connectors for arcing

damage, deposits between contacts, and

looseness of contacts; and removing

deposits between contacts, tightening

any loose contacts, and replacing any aft

wing break connectors with arcing

damage. The proposed AD results from

several reports of uncommanded flap

extensions and displays of incorrect

stall warning indications on the affected

airplanes. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent

contamination in the aft wing break

connectors, which could result in

uncommanded flap extensions and

incorrect stall warning indications with

consequent loss of airplane control.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before October 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–CE–34–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments

may be inspected at this location

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from

Aerospace Technologies of Australia Pty

Ltd., ASTA DEFENCE, Private Bag No.

4, Beach Road Lara 3212, Victoria,

Australia. This information also may be

examined at the Rules Docket at the

address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Ron Atmur, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,

Lakewood, California 90712; telephone

(562) 627–5224; facsimile (562) 627–

5210.

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

should 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 that

summarizes 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 No. 97–CE–34–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, Central Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 97–CE–34–AD, Room

1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

Discussion

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority

(CASA), which is the airworthiness

authority for Australia, recently notified

the FAA that an unsafe condition may

exist on certain ASTA Models N22B,

N22S, and N24A airplanes. The CASA

reports several uncommanded flap

extensions and displays of incorrect

stall warning indications on the

referenced airplanes. Contamination in

the aft wing break connectors can cause

such occurrences. These conditions, if

not detected and corrected, could lead

to loss of airplane control.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 43957

Applicable Service Information

ASTA has issued Nomad Service

Bulletin (SB) ANMD–57–13, dated

October 30, 1995. This SB includes

procedures for inspecting the aft wing

break connectors for arcing damage,

deposits between contacts, and

looseness of contacts; and removing

deposits between contacts, tightening

any loose contacts, and replacing any aft

wing break connectors with arcing

damage.

The CASA of Australia classified this

service bulletin as mandatory and

issued FCAA AD/GAF–N22/74, dated

March 1996, in order to assure the

continued airworthiness of these

airplanes in Australia.

The FAA’s Determination

This airplane model is manufactured

in Australia and is type certificated for

operation in the United States under the

provisions of section 21.29 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.29) and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement,

the CASA of Australia has kept the FAA

informed of the situation described

above. The FAA has examined the

findings of the CASA of Australia;

reviewed all available information,

including the service information

referenced above; and determined that

AD action is necessary for products of

this type design that are certificated for

operation in the United States.

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other ASTA Models N22B,

N22S, and N24A airplanes of the same

type design that are registered in the

United States, the FAA is proposing AD

action. The proposed AD would require

repetitively inspecting the aft wing

break connectors for arcing damage,

deposits between contacts, and

looseness of contacts; and removing

deposits between contacts, tightening

any loose contacts, and replacing any aft

wing break connectors with arcing

damage.

Accomplishment of the proposed

actions would be in accordance with

Nomad SB ANMD–57–13, dated

October 30, 1995.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 15 airplanes

in the U.S. registry would be affected by

the proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 1 workhour per airplane

to accomplish the proposed initial

inspection, and that the average labor

rate is approximately $60 an hour.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $900 or $60

per airplane. This figure does not take

into account the cost of repetitive

inspections or the cost to replace any

damaged aft wing break connectors. The

FAA has no way of determining the

number of repetitive inspections each

operator would incur over the life of

each affected airplane or the number of

aft wing break connectors that may be

found damaged during the inspections

proposed by this action.

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 action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under 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 has been placed 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

adding a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

Aerospace Technologies of Australia PTY

LTD: Docket No. 97–CE–34–AD.

Applicability: Models N22B, N22S, and

N24A airplanes (all serial numbers),

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 (e) 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 in the

body of this AD, unless already

accomplished.

To prevent contamination in the aft wing

break connectors, which could result in

uncommanded flap extensions and incorrect

stall warning indications with consequent

loss of airplane control, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within the next 100 hours time-inservice (TIS) after the effective date of this

AD and thereafter at intervals not to exceed

300 hours TIS, inspect the aft wing break

connectors for arcing damage, deposits

between contacts, and looseness of contacts.

Accomplish these inspections in accordance

with the ACCOMPLISHMENT

INSTRUCTIONS section of Nomad Service

Bulletin (SB) ANMD–57–13, dated October

30, 1995.

(b) If any deposits between contacts, loose

contacts, or aft wing break connector arcing

damage is found, prior to further flight,

accomplish the following, as applicable, in

accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT

INSTRUCTIONS section of Nomad SB

ANMD–57–13, dated October 30, 1995:

(1) Remove any deposits between contacts;

(2) Tighten any loose contacts; and

(3) Replace any aft wing break connectors

with arcing damage.

(c) The repetitive inspections specified in

this AD are required even if deposit is

removed between the aft wing break

connector contacts; any aft wing break

connector contacts are tightened; or any aft

wing break connectors are replaced.

(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

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(e) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, FAA, Los Angeles

ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard.,

Lakewood, California 90712. The request
43958 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

shall be forwarded through an appropriate

FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Los Angeles ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(f) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the document referred

to herein upon request to Aerospace

Technologies of Australia Pty Ltd., ASTA

DEFENCE, Private Bag No. 4, Beach Road

Lara 3212, Victoria, Australia; or may

examine this document at the FAA, Central

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August

11, 1997.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–21787 Filed 8–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

19 CFR Part 134

RIN 1515–AB61

Country of Origin Marking

Requirements for Frozen Imported

Produce

AGENCY: Customs Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;

additional comment period.

SUMMARY: This document provides

interested members of the public an

additional 60 days to submit written

comments on a proposal to amend the

Customs Regulations regarding the

country of origin marking of imported

frozen produce. The proposed

amendment would revise the

regulations to mandate front panel

marking of imported frozen produce.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before October 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments

(preferably in triplicate) may be

addressed to the Regulations Branch,

Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S.

Customs Service, Franklin Court, 1301

Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20229. Comments submitted may

be inspected at the Regulations Branch,

Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S.

Customs Service, Franklin Court, 1099

14th Street, N.W., Suite 4000,

Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Cohen, Special Classification and

Marking Branch, Office of Regulations

and Rulings (202–482–6980).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 23, 1996, Customs published

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (61 FR

38119) soliciting comments on a

proposal to require that the country of

origin of frozen imported produce be

marked on the front panel of their retail

packages to comply with the statutory

requirement that the country of origin

marking be in a ‘‘conspicuous place.’’

On September 23, 1996, the comment

period closed.

Subsequent to the close of the

comment period, Customs received a

large number of additional comments

and other correspondence concerning

this matter. In order to afford Customs

an appropriate opportunity to consider

the points raised in those comments and

other correspondence received outside

the prescribed comment period, and in

order to provide an additional

opportunity for the general public to

submit comments on this matter which

continues to engender significant

interest, Customs has decided to reopen

this matter for public comment for 60

more days. In order to ensure

consideration of the most complete

record possible, Customs will, after the

close of the new public comment

period, give consideration to all

comments and other correspondence

already received during or after the

original comment period as well as all

comments received during the new

public comment period herein.

Accordingly, there is no need to resubmit copies of any comments

previously submitted to Customs with

respect to this proposed rulemaking.

Dated: August 12, 1997.

George J. Weise,

Commissioner of Customs.

[FR Doc. 97–21742 Filed 8–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 187

46 CFR Part 67

[CGD 96–060]

Vessel Documentation: Combined

Builder’s Certificate and

Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin,

Submission of Hull Identification

Number (HIN) for Documentation of

Recreational Vessels, and Issuance of

Temporary Certificates of

Documentation

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The National Vessel

Documentation Center will hold a

public meeting as a follow-up to its

November 14, 1996, notice of requests

for comments on vessel documentation

matters. The meeting will be held to

discuss combining the Builder’s

Certificate and the Manufacturer’s

Certificate of Origin, requiring a Hull

Identification Number for the

documentation of recreational vessels,

and issuing a Temporary Certificate of

Documentation.

DATES: The meeting will be on

September 17, 1997, from 10 a.m. to 4

p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be in room

6200–6204, Department of

Transportation, Nassif Building, 400 7th

Street SW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Dennis M. Nelson, Chief, Recreational

Vessel Documentation Branch, National

Vessel Documentation Center, 2039

Stonewall Jackson Dr., Falling Waters,

WV 25419; telephone 304–271–2400

(800–799–8362); fax 304–271–2405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 14, 1996, the Coast Guard

published a ‘‘notice of request for

comments’’ (61 FR 58359) on the

following subjects. The notice provides

additional background information.

After reviewing the comments, we now

need your help in answering the

following questions:

1. Hull Identification Number (HIN).

The Coast Guard is considering

requiring that recreational vessels be

marked with an HIN before being

documented and that the HIN appear on

the application for documentation. This

would align documentation process

with the Vessel Identification System.

Also, it would deter fraud, aid in law

enforcement, and improve the

identification of vessels. Should a photo

or a rubbing of the HIN accompany the

Application for Documentation?

2. Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin

and Builder’s Certification. Currently,

the States use the Manufacturer’s

Certificate of Origin (MCO) for

registering and titling vessels and the

Coast Guard uses the Builder’s

Certification (Form CG–1261) for

documenting vessels. The Coast Guard

is considering combining these two

forms to reduce the possibility for fraud,

allow boat manufacturers to use only

one form for either system, and aid law

enforcement by means of a uniform

system for identifying vessels. Are there

any reasons why this proposal should

not be adopted?