Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 65999

(i) Deficiencies in quality, in accordance

with the Official United States Standards for

Grain, result in the canola not meeting the

grade requirements for U.S. No. 3 or better

(U.S. Sample grade) because of kernel

damage (excluding heat damage), or a musty,

sour, or commercially objectionable foreign

odor; or

(ii) Substances or conditions are present

that are identified by the Food and Drug

Administration or other public health

organizations of the United States as being

injurious to human or animal health.

(3) Quality will be a factor in determining

your loss in canola production only if:

(i) The deficiencies, substances, or

conditions resulted from a cause of loss

against which insurance is provided under

these Crop Provisions and which occurs

within the insurance period;

(ii) The deficiencies, substances, or

conditions result in a net price for the

damaged production that is less than the

local market price;

(iii) All determinations of these

deficiencies, substances, or conditions are

made using samples of the production

obtained by us or by a disinterested third

party approved by us; and

(iv) The samples are analyzed by a grader

licensed to grade canola under the authority

of the United States Grain Standards Act or

the United States Warehouse Act with regard

to deficiencies in quality, or by a laboratory

approved by us with regard to substances or

conditions injurious to human or animal

health.

(4) Canola production that is eligible for

quality adjustment, as specified in sections

12(d)(2) and (3), will be reduced:

(i) In accordance with the quality

adjustment factors contained in the Special

Provisions; or

(ii) As follows if quality adjustment factors

are not contained in the Special Provisions:

(A) Divide the price of damaged

production by the local market price to

determine the quality adjustment factor.

(B) The number of pounds remaining after

any reduction due to excessive moisture (the

moisture-adjusted gross pounds) of the

damaged or conditioned production will then

be multiplied by the quality adjustment

factor to determine the net production to

count.

(5) For canola, the price of damaged

production and the local market price will be

determined at the earlier of the date such

quality adjusted production is sold or the

date of final inspection for the unit subject

to the following conditions:

(i) Discounts used to establish the price of

damaged production will be limited to those

that are usual, customary, and reasonable.

(ii) The price of damaged production will

not be reduced for:

(A) Moisture content;

(B) Damage due to uninsured causes;

(C) Drying, handling, processing, or any

other costs associated with normal

harvesting, handling, and marketing of the

canola; except, if the price of damaged

production can be increased by conditioning,

we may reduce the price of damaged

production after the production has been

conditioned by the cost of conditioning but

not lower than the price of damaged

production before conditioning. We may

obtain prices of damaged production from

any buyer of our choice. If we obtain prices

of damaged production from one or more

buyers located outside your local market

area, we will reduce such price of damaged

production by the additional costs required

to deliver the canola to those buyers; or

(D) Erucic acid or glucosinolates in excess

of the amount allowed under the definition

of canola contained in the Official United

States Standards for Grain; and

(iii) Factors not associated with grading

under the Official United States Standards

for Grain including, but not limited to

protein and oil, will not be considered.

(e) Any production harvested from plants

growing in the insured crop may be counted

as production of the insured crop on an

unadjusted weight basis.

For example:

You have 100 percent share in 25 acres of

Fall Oleic Canola in a unit with a 650 pound

production guarantee and a price election of

$0.11 per pound. You are only able to harvest

14,700 pounds and there is no appraised

production. Your indemnity would be

calculated as follows:

(1) 25 acres x 650 pounds = 16,250 pounds

of Fall Oleic Canola;

(2) 16,250 pounds x $0.11 price election =

$1,788 value of guarantee for Fall Oleic

Canola;

(3) 14,700 pounds x $0.11 price election =

$1,617 total value of production to count

for Fall Oleic Canola;

(4) $1,788 value of guarantee¥$1,617 value

of production to count = $171 value of

loss; and

(5) $171 value of loss x 100 percent = $171

indemnity payment.

You also have a 100 percent share in 50

acres of Fall High Erucic Rapeseed in the

same unit with a production guarantee of 750

pounds per acre and a price election of $0.15

per pound. You are only able to harvest

14,000 pounds and there is no appraised

production. Your total indemnity for both

Fall Oleic Canola and Fall High Erucic

Rapeseed would be calculated as follows:

(1) 25 acres x 650 pounds = 16,250 pounds

guarantee for the Fall Oleic Canola, and

50 acres x 750 pounds = 37,500 pounds

guarantee for the Fall High Erucic

Rapeseed;

(2) 16,250 pounds guarantee x $0.11 price

election = $1,788 value of the guarantee

for the Fall Oleic Canola, and

37,500 pounds guarantee x $0.15 price

election = $5,625 value of the guarantee

for the Fall High Erucic Rapeseed;

(3) $1,788 + $5,625 = $7,413 total value of

the guarantees;

(4) 14,700 pound x $0.11 price election =

$1,617 value of production to count for

the Fall Oleic Canola, and

14,000 pounds x $0.15 price election =

$2,100 value of production to count for

the Fall High Erucic Rapeseed;

(5) $1,617 + $2,100 = $3,717 total value of

production to count;

(6) $7,413 value of guarantee¥$3,717 value

of production = $3,696 loss; and

(7) $3,696 value of loss x 100 percent =

$3,696 indemnity payment.

13. Late Planting.

In lieu of section 16(a) of the Basic

Provisions, the production guarantee for each

acre planted to the insured crop during the

late planting period will be reduced by 1

percent per day for each day planted after the

final planting date unless otherwise specified

in the Special Provisions.

14. Prevented Planting.

In addition to the provisions contained in

section 17 of the Basic Provisions, your

prevented planting coverage will be 60

percent of your production guarantee for

timely planted acreage. If you have limited or

additional levels of coverage, as specified in

7 CFR part 400, subpart T, and pay an

additional premium, you may increase your

prevented planting coverage to the levels

specified in the actuarial documents.

Signed in Washington, D.C., on December

11, 1997.

Suzette Dittrich,

Deputy Manager,

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.

[FR Doc. 97–32848 Filed 12–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–08–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 94

[Docket No. 97–118–1]

Change in Disease Status of

Luxembourg Because of BSE

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Interim rule and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: We are amending the

regulations by adding Luxembourg to

the list of regions where bovine

spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) exists

because the disease has been detected in

a cow in that region. The effect of this

action is to prohibit or restrict the

importation of ruminants which have

been in Luxembourg and certain fresh

(chilled or frozen) meat, and certain

other animal products and animal

byproducts from ruminants which have

been in Luxembourg. This action is

necessary to reduce the risk that BSE

could be introduced into the United

States.

DATES: Interim rule effective December

2, 1997. Consideration will be given

only to comments received on or before

February 17, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 97–118–1, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.
66000 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Please state that your comments refer to

Docket No. 97–118–1. Comments

received may be inspected at USDA,

room 1141, South Building, 14th Street

and Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except holidays. Persons wishing to

inspect comments are requested to call

ahead on (202) 690–2817 to facilitate

entry into the comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

John Cougill, Staff Veterinarian, Animal

Products Program, National Center for

Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700

River Road Unit 40, Riverdale, MD

20737–1231, (301) 734–3399; or e-mail:

jcougill@aphis.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 9 CFR parts 93, 94,

and 95 (referred to below as the

regulations) govern the importation of

certain animals, birds, poultry, meat,

animal products, animal byproducts,

hay, and straw into the United States in

order to prevent the introduction of

various animal diseases, including

bovine spongiform encephalopathy

(BSE).

BSE is a neurological disease of

bovine animals and other ruminants and

is not known to exist in the United

States.

It appears that BSE is primarily

spread through the use of ruminant feed

containing protein and other products

from ruminants infected with BSE.

Therefore, BSE could become

established in the United States if

materials carrying the BSE agent, such

as certain meat, animal products, and

animal byproducts from ruminants in

regions in which BSE exists, are

imported into the United States and are

fed to ruminants in the United States.

BSE could also become established in

the United States if ruminants from

regions in which BSE exists are

imported.

Sections 94.18 and 95.4 of the

regulations prohibit and restrict the

importation of certain meat, animal

products, and animal byproducts from

ruminants which have been in regions

in which BSE exists. These regions are

listed in § 94.18 of the regulations.

Furthermore, § 93.404(a)(3) states that

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service may deny the importation of

ruminants from regions where a

communicable disease such as BSE

exists.

Luxembourg’s Ministry of Agriculture

has reported a case of BSE in

Luxembourg. BSE was confirmed by

histopathological examination

according to standardized procedures

for the diagnosis of BSE. Luxembourg’s

Ministry of Agriculture confirmed that

BSE was in a cow born in Luxembourg.

The exposure of this animal to the BSE

agent could only have occurred in

Luxembourg. In order to reduce the risk

of introducing BSE into the United

States, we are, therefore, adding

Luxembourg to the list of regions where

BSE is known to exist. Thus, we are

prohibiting or restricting the

importation into the United States of

ruminants which have been in

Luxembourg, and certain fresh (chilled

or frozen) meat, and certain other

animal products and animal byproducts

from ruminants which have been in

Luxembourg.

We are making this action effective

retroactively to December 2, 1997, as

that was the day on which the case of

BSE was reported by Luxembourg’s

Ministry of Agriculture. This effective

date is necessary to ensure that the

prohibitions and restrictions established

by this rule apply to ruminants, as well

as fresh (chilled or frozen) meat, and

certain other animal products and

animal byproducts from ruminants that

have been shipped to the United States

from Luxembourg on or after October

31, 1997.

Immediate Action

The Administrator of the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service has

determined that there is good cause for

publishing this interim rule without

prior opportunity for public comment.

Immediate action is necessary to

prevent the introduction of BSE into the

United States.

Because prior notice and other public

procedures with respect to this action

are impracticable and contrary to the

public interest under these conditions,

we find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553

to make this rule effective on December

2, 1997. We will consider comments

that are received within 60 days of

publication of this rule in the Federal

Register. After the comment period

closes, we will publish another

document in the Federal Register. It

will include a discussion of any

comments we receive and any

amendments we are making to the rule

as a result of the comments.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866. For this action,

the Office of Management and Budget

has waived its review process required

by Executive Order 12866.

This action adds Luxembourg to the

list of regions where BSE exists. We are

taking this action based on reports we

have received from Luxembourg’s

Ministry of Agriculture, which

confirmed that a case of BSE has

occurred in Luxembourg.

This emergency situation makes

compliance with section 603 and timely

compliance with section 604 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.) impracticable. If we determine

that this rule will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, then we will

discuss the issues raised by section 604

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act in our

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State

and local laws and regulations that are

inconsistent with this rule; (2) has

retroactive effect to December 2, 1997;

and (3) does not require administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no information

collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock,

Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry

and poultry products, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 9 CFR part 94 is

amended as follows:

PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-ANDMOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL

PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE

DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER,

HOG CHOLERA, AND BOVINE

SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY:

PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED

IMPORTATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 94

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150ee, 161, 162,

and 450; 19 U.S.C. 1306, 21 U.S.C. 111, 114a,

134a, 134b, 134c, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31

U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331 and 4332; 7 CFR

2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

§ 94.18 [Amended]

2. In § 94.18, paragraph (a) is

amended by adding the word

‘‘Luxembourg,’’ immediately after

‘‘Great Britain,’’.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 66001

Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of

December 1997.

Craig A. Reed,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 97–32811 Filed 12–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–SW–54–AD; Amendment

39–10252; AD 97–26–09]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta

S.p.A. Model A109K2 Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to Agusta S.p.A (Agusta)

Model A109K2 helicopters. This action

requires inspecting the Gleason crown

on the main transmission for cracks, and

replacing the Gleason crown with an

airworthy Gleason crown if any crack is

found. This amendment is prompted by

three reports of fatigue cracks found in

the Gleason crown. The actions

specified in this AD are intended to

prevent failure of the Gleason crown,

failure of the main transmission and

subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.

DATES: Effective January 2, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of January 2,

1998.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

February 17, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–SW–54–

AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,

Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from Agusta,

21017 Cascina Costa di Samarate (VA),

Via Giovanni Agusta 520, telephone

(0331) 229111, fax (0331) 229605–

222595. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Office of Regional

Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601

Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,

Texas; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Scott Horn, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,

Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft

Standards Staff, 2601 Meacham Blvd.,

Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone

(817) 222–5125, fax (817) 222–5961.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Registro Aeronautico Italiano (RAI),

which is the airworthiness authority for

Italy, recently notified the FAA that an

unsafe condition may exist on Agusta

Model A109K2 helicopters with main

transmission assembly, part number

(P/N) 109–0400–03, serial number (S/N)

005, 006, 007, 008, 010, 011, 012, 013,

014, 015, 016, 017, 018, 020, 022, 024,

027, 030, 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 038,

039, 042, 047, 048, A2/1053, A2/1073,

A2/1397, or B54895 e C347. The RAI

advises that, due to reports of cracks

being discovered in the Gleason crown

on the main transmission, the actions

specified by the Agusta Bollettino

Tecnico (Technical Bulletin) No. 109K–

16, dated April 24, 1997, are mandatory.

Agusta has issued Agusta Bollettino

Tecnico (Technical Bulletin) No. 109K–

16, dated April 24, 1997, which

specifies a magnetic particle inspection

of certain Gleason crowns for cracks.

The RAI classified this service bulletin

as mandatory and issued AD 97–122,

dated April 29, 1997, in order to assure

the continued airworthiness of these

helicopters in Italy.

This helicopter model is

manufactured in Italy 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 RAI has

kept the FAA informed of the situation

described above. The FAA has

examined the findings of the RAI,

reviewed all available information, and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are

certificated for operation in the United

States.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other Agusta Model A109K2

helicopters of the same type design

registered in the United States, this AD

is being issued to prevent failure of the

Gleason crown, failure of the main

transmission, and subsequent loss of

control of the helicopter. The Gleason

crown is a part of the main transmission

assembly and is therefore a critical

component of the main rotor drive

system. Due to the criticality of the

Gleason crown to the continued safe

flight of the affected helicopters, and the

required inspection before the next 50

hours time-in-service (TIS), this rule

must be issued immediately to correct

an unsafe condition. This AD requires,

within 50 hours TIS and thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS,

a magnetic particle inspection of the

main transmission Gleason crown for

cracks. If any crack is found,

replacement of the Gleason crown, P/N

109–0403–07–103, with an airworthy

Gleason crown, P/N 109–0403–07–103,

S/N B58264 through

S/N B58270, or S/N B58272 and

subsequent (S/N B58271 is not an

acceptable replacement part), and vibroetching the main transmission tag with

‘‘S.M. 109–25094’’ are required. These

actions are required to be accomplished

in accordance with the technical

bulletin described previously.

Since a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of this

regulation, it is found that notice and

opportunity for prior public comment

hereon are impracticable, and that good

cause exists for making this amendment

effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirements

affecting flight safety and, thus, was not

preceded by notice and an opportunity

for public comment, comments are

invited on this rule. Interested persons

are invited to comment on this 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

under the caption ADDRESSES. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments will be

considered, and this rule may be

amended in light of the comments

received. Factual information that

supports the commenter’s ideas and

suggestions is extremely helpful in

evaluating the effectiveness of the AD

action and determining whether

additional rulemaking action would be

needed.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the rule that might suggest a need to

modify the 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 AD

will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments