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?