25540 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices

and will take action under section

301(a) of the Trade Act if Argentina fails

to implement the rulings and

recommendations of the WTO reports

within a reasonable period of time to be

determined in accordance with WTO

rules.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 3, 1998.

ADDRESSES: 600 17th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kellie A. Meiman, Director for Mercosur

and the Southern Cone, (202) 395–5190,

or Hal S. Shapiro, Assistant General

Counsel, (202) 395–3582.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the

GATT 1994, Argentina agreed to a

maximum tariff rate of 35 percent of the

value of imported textile, apparel and

footwear products. Argentina, through,

has imposed minimum specific duties—

i.e., a minimum flat rate—applicable to

hundreds of categories of textiles,

apparel and footwear that exceed 35

percent when assessed on a wide variety

of imports. The imposition of duties

greater than an agreed upon maximum

rate is inconsistent with Article II of the

GATT 1994, which provides that

imports shall be exempt from all duties

or charges of any kind imposed on or in

connection with importation in excess

of those set forth in a WTO Member’s

tariff binding.

Argentina also has imposed a

statistical tax on almost all imports that

is calculated based on the value of the

merchandise subject to it. The tax

formerly was 3 percent of the price of

covered imports, but Argentina reduced

it to 0.5 percent in January 1998. Article

VIII of the GATT 1994 states that all fees

and charges imposed by WTO members,

other than ordinary import or export

duties, shall be limited to the

approximate cost of services rendered

and shall not represent an indirect

protection to domestic products or a

taxation of imports for fiscal purposes.

Because the statistical tax is levied as a

percentage of the value of imported

items, and has no maximum charge, it

is not limited to the cost of any service

rendered.

On January 22, 1997, the United

States requested the establishment of a

WTO dispute settlement panel to

examine whether Argentina’s measures

are inconsistent with its obligations

under the WTO agreements. On

November 25, 1997, the panel

determined that Argentina’s specific

duties on textiles and apparel violate

GATT Article II and that the statistical

tax violates GATT Article VIII. The

panel’s decision did not address

Argentina’s specific duties on footwear

because, shortly after the United States

requested the establishment of a panel,

Argentina revoked these duties and

imposed a safeguard measure in their

place. On March 27, 1998, the WTO

Appellate Body affirmed the panel’s

decision, though it disagreed with the

panel’s reasoning in certain respects.

Pursuant to section 304(a)(1)(A) of the

Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2414(a)(1)(A)), the

USTR is required to determine in this

case whether Argentina’s specific duties

and statistical tax violate, or otherwise

deny, benefits to which the United

States is entitled under a trade

agreement. Where that determination is

affirmative, the USTR must take action

under section 301 of the Trade Act (19

U.S.C. 2411), subject to the specific

direction of the President, if any, unless

the USTR finds that one of the

circumstances set forth in section

301(a)(2)(B) (19 U.S.C. 2411(a)(2)(B))

exists.

Based on the results of the WTO

dispute settlement proceedings, as well

as public comments received and

appropriate consultations, the USTR has

determined that Argentina’s specific

duties on textile and apparel imports

violate Argentina’s obligations under

GATT 1994 Article II and its statistical

tax on almost all imports violates GATT

Article VIII.

The decision of the panel, as modified

by the decision of the Appellate Body,

was adopted at the April 22, 1998

meeting of the DSB. The USTR expects

that Argentina will conform its specific

duties and statistical tax to meet its

obligations under the GATT 1994,

consistent with the decisions of the

panel and the Appellate Body, and will

do within a reasonable period of time to

be determined in accordance with WTO

rules. Therefore, pursuant to section

301(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Trade Act, the

USTR is not taking action at this time

under section 301(a) of the Trade Act

and has terminated this investigation.

Pursuant to section 306 of the Trade Act

(19 U.S.C. 2416), the USTR will monitor

Argentina’s implementation of the WTO

reports and will take action under

section 301(a) if Argentina fails to

implement the rulings and

recommendations of the WTO reports

within a reasonable period of time to be

determined in accordance with WTO

rules.

Irving A. Williamson,

Chairman, Section 301 Committee.

[FR Doc. 98–12195 Filed 5–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Proposed Change #3 to FAA–P–8110–

2, Airship Design Criteria (ADC)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability and

request for comments.

SUMMARY: Change 3 is based on a

National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB) recommendation calling for

envelope tear warning systems on new

airship certification projects. The

recommendation stems from an airship

accident that resulted from an envelope

failure. Change 3 requires that some

means of indication or warning system

will alert the pilot of envelope tears.

This could be an elaborate warning

system based on sensors or simple

gauges located and marked such that an

unusual indication would be obvious to

the pilot.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments to:

Federal Aviation Administration, Small

Airplane Directorate, Standards Office,

ACE–110, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas

City, Missouri 64106.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lowell Foster, Regulations and Policy

Branch, ACE–111, at the address above,

telephone number (816) 426–6941.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any

person may obtain a copy of this

information by contacting the person

named above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

Comments Invited

We invite interested parties to submit

comments on the proposed change to

the ADC. Commenters must identify the

report number (FAA–P–8110–2) and

submit comments to the address

specified above. The FAA will consider

all communications received on or

before the closing date for comments

before issuing the final Change 3 to the

ADC. The proposed changes to the ADC

and comments received may be

inspected at the Standards Office (ACE–

110), 1201 Walnut, Suite 900, Kansas

City, Missouri, between the hours of

7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, except

Federal holidays.

Background

In 1993, an airship came to rest on top

and draped over a seven-story building

in New York, New York, after the

airship deflated in flight and became

uncontrollable. The airship suffered a

large tear in the envelope, the material
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices 25541

that makes up the shape of the balloon

portion of the airship. The NTSB

subsequently investigated and

recommended several changes to the

FAA’s airship design standards. One of

the recommendations called for an

envelope tear warning system. The primary reason for the NTSB’s

recommendation for the envelope tear

warning system came from the crew’s

report. The pilot and passenger both

stated that they were not aware of the

loss of envelope pressure until the

airship began to collapse, even though

there was a pressure gauge and a low

pressure indicator light to alert them of

envelope damage. Although crew

procedures for both major and minor

envelope tears had been established,

those actions were not accomplished

because the crew did not initially

recognize that the envelope was

damaged. The emergency procedures for this

airship, relating to a tear in the

envelope, are to operate the airship with

a very low pressure. Very low pressure

causes the airship to lose rigidity, but

minimizes the loss of helium while

maintaining controllability. If the

emergency procedure is not followed,

ballonets will automatically attempt to

keep the envelope pressure constant,

forcing helium out through the tear.

Ballonets are airbags contained within

the envelope that are inflated with air to

control the rigidity and sometimes the

center of gravity (trim) of the airship. A

warning light and alarm activate when

the envelope pressure drops below a

nominal level; however, if the ballonets

continue to automatically inflate to

maintain envelope pressure, the alarm

system does not activate until

substantial helium is lost.

The NTSB noted that the airship was

not equipped nor required to be

equipped with a ballonet inflation rate

transducer or other device, which might

have alerted the crew to the loss of

significant quantities of helium. The

NTSB believes that had the airship been

equipped with a better warning system,

the pilot would have been alerted to the

loss of pressure earlier and could have

taken prudent emergency actions to

improve the possibility of a controlled

emergency landing.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April

30, 1998.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

Proposed Change #3 To FAA–P–8110–2

Airship Design Criteria (ADC)

New Item: Add to 6.2 ‘‘(i)’’

Change 3 is based on a National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

recommendation calling for envelope

tear warning systems on new airship

certification projects. The

recommendation stems from an airship

accident that resulted from an envelope

failure. Change 3 requires that some

means of indication or warning system

will alert the pilot of envelope tears.

The new paragraph will be added to

item 6.2 as follows:

(i) Means to warn the pilot of

envelope tears.

Acceptable compliance means

include systems as simple as locating

and marking both envelope and ballonet

pressure gauges so that unusual

indications (rapid loss of helium) are

immediately noticeable to the pilot. If

an airship valving system is complex or

automatic, a system such as a ballonet

airflow rate change sensor connected to

a warning system may be more

appropriate.

[FR Doc. 98–12293 Filed 5–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE–98–8]

Petitions for Exemption; Summary of

Petitions Received; Dispositions of

Petitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for

exemption received and of dispositions

of prior petitions.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemaking

provisions governing the application,

processing, and disposition of petitions

for exemption (14 CFR Part 11), this

notice contains a summary of certain

petitions seeking relief from specified

requirements of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Chapter I),

dispositions of certain petitions

previously received, and corrections.

The purpose of this notice is to improve

the public’s awareness of, and

participation in, this aspect of FAA’s

regulatory activities. Neither publication

of this notice nor the inclusion or

omission of information in the summary

is intended to affect the legal status of

any petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on petitions received

must identify the petition docket

number involved and must be received

on or before May 28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on any

petition in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attn: Rule Docket (AGC–

200), Petition Docket No. lll, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20591. Comments

may also be sent electronically to the

following internet address: 9–NPRM–

CMTS@faa.dot.gov.

The petition, any comments received,

and a copy of any final disposition are

filed in the assigned regulatory docket

and are available for examination in the

Rules Docket (AGC–200), Room 915G,

FAA Headquarters Building (FOB 10A),

800 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20591; telephone

(202) 267–3132.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tawana Matthews (202) 267–9783 or

Angela Anderson (202) 267–9681 Office

of Rulemaking (ARM–1), Federal

Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591.

This notice is published pursuant to

paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) of § 11.27 of

Part 11 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Part 11).

Issued in Washington, D.C., on May 4,

1998.

Donald P. Byrne,

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.

Petitions for Exemption

Docket No.: 29161.

Petitioner: World Airways, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.434(e).

Description of Relief Sought: To

permit World Airways to use flight

attendants who previously served with,

and were trained by Aer Lingus as

required crew members without those

flight attendants having received five

hours of supervised operating

experience under part 121.

Docket No.: 25080.

Petitioner: Aeroservice Aviation

Center, Inc.

Sections of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

61.55(b)(3); 61.56(h)(1), (2), and (3); and

61.57(c)(3) and (d)(2); 61.58(e);

61.64(e)(3); 61.65(e)(2), and (g)(1) and

(3); 61.67(c)(4) and (d)(2); 61.158(d)(1);

61.191(d); and 61.197(e).

Description of Relief Sought: To

permit Aeroservice and persons who

contract for services from Aeroservice to

continue to use Federal Aviation

Administration-approved flight

simulators to meet certain flight

experience requirements of part 61