Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27511

that would build on current programs to

develop a comprehensive, national food

safety education and training campaign

directed at people who work in

restaurants and other food service

facilities, people who work in retail

stores, and at consumers. This campaign

would include lesson plans and

materials for classroom training that

could be used in public school curricula

as well as in food service settings.

Household Consumers

A primary tool for reducing the risk

of foodborne disease among consumers

is education. To ensure that consumers

are fully and adequately informed of the

significant risks associated with SE in

eggs and how to best avoid these risks,

FDA shortly will be proposing certain

labeling requirements for eggs. The

agencies also plan to intensify their

consumer education efforts in the

coming months and to institute

permanent food safety education

programs that will help consumers

protect themselves from all food safety

hazards.

Thus, by this notice, FDA and FSIS

are requesting comments and

information on a variety of issues

concerning ways to reduce the risk to

the public health from SE in shell eggs.

These issues need to be addressed

comprehensively by the agencies. FSIS

and FDA welcome discussion and

comments on the issues in this notice

and other issues related to the subject.

The agencies are particularly interested

in comments about alternatives that

would minimize the impact on small

entities.

Done in Washington, DC, on May 11, 1998.

Thomas J. Billy,

Administrator, FSIS.

William B. Schultz,

Deputy Commissioner for Policy, FDA.

References

1. D’Aoust, J. 1997, Salmonella Species. pp.

129–158. In, Doyle, M., Beuchat, L. and

Montville, L. (eds.), Food Microbiology

Fundamentals and Frontiers, ASM Press,

Washington, D.C.; Jay, J. 1996. Chapter

23. Foodborne Gastroenteritis caused by

Salmonella and Shigella. pp. 507–526, In

Modern Food Microbiology, Fifth ed.,

Chapman & Hall, New York.

2. Berenson, A. (ed). 1995. Typhoid Fever,

pp. 502–507. In, Control of

Communicable Diseases Manual,

Sixteenth ed., American Public Health

Assn., Washington, D.C.

3. id. n. 1.

4. id.

5. CDC. Laboratory Confirmed Salmonella,

Surveillance Annual Summary, 1993–

1995 and 1996.

6. Swerdlow, D. et al. Reactive arthropathy

following a multistate outbreak of

Salmonella typhimurium infections.

Abstract 916. 30th Interscience

Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and

Chemotherapy.

7. CDC. Memo to the Record dtd 2/8/96 from

Chief, Foodborne Diseases Epidemiology

Section, NCID.

8. Chalker, R. And Blaser, M. 1988. A Review

of Human Salmonellosis: III. Magnitude

of Salmonella Infections in the United

States. Rev Inf Dis. 10:111–123

9. id. n. 8.

10. CDC. 1996. Outbreaks of Salmonella

Serotype Enteriditis Infection Associated

with Consumption of Raw Shell Eggs—

United States, 1994–1995. MMWR

45:737–742.

11. Letter dtd April 16, 1997, from J. Stratton,

Calif. Dept. of Health Services to T. Billy,

FSIS.

12. Altekruse S., et al, 1993. A Comparison

of Salmonella Enteritidis Phage Types

from Egg-associated Outbreaks and

Implicated Flocks. Epidemiol. Infect.

110–17–22.

13. Hennessy T., et al. A National Outbreak

of Salmonella Enteriditis Infections from

Ice Cream. N E J Med. 1996. 334:1281–

1286.

14. Khan M. And Nguyen A. 1995. A

Salmonella-Specific DNA Probe and Its

Use in Southern Hybridration for

Differentiation of Salmonella Enteriditis.

Avian Diseases. 39:368–374.

15. Buchanan, R., et al. 1997. Egg and Egg

Products. In, Microorganisms in Foods;

No. 6, Microbiology of Commodities.

International Commission on

Microbiological Specifications for Foods

(eds.); Chapman Hall, London, UK. (In

press)

16. id n. 11; Tauxe, R. 1966. An Update on

Salmonella. Health and Environment

Digest. 10:1–4; Mishu B., et al. 1994.

Outbreaks of Salmonella Enteriditis

Infections in the United States, 1985–

1991. J Infect Dis 169: 547–552.

17. St. Louis, M. et al. 1988. The Emergence

of Grade A Eggs as a Major Source of

Salmonella Enteriditis Infections, New

Implications for Control of

Salmonellosis. JAMA 259:2103–2107.

18. Gast, R., and Beard, C. 1990. Production

of Salmonella Enteritidis-Contaminated

Eggs by Experimentally Infected Hens.

Avian Diseases. 1990; 34: 438–446.

19. Schlosser, W., Hogue, A., Morales, R.

1996. An Estimation of the Prevalence of

Salmonella Enteritidis Positive Eggs in

the United States, A Working Model.

(unpublished) FSIS, USDA.

20. Rhorer, A. 1996. NPIP National Plan’s

Status Report. APHIS, USDA

(unpublished)

21. White, P.R. et al. 1996. Environmental

Survey (by Manure Drag Sampling) for

Salmonella enteritidis in Chicken Layer

Houses (unpublished)

22. Morse, D. New York Department of Public

Health. Presentation to Second Annual

Federal-State Conference on Food Safety,

Washington, DC., Oct., 1996.

23. Clay, C. And Board, R. 1991. Growth of

Salmonella Enteritidis in artificially

contaminated hens’ eggs. Epidemiol.

Infect. 106:271–281.

24. Humphrey, T. and Whitehead, A. 1993.

Egg age and the growth of Salmonella

Enteritidis PT4 in egg contents.

Epidemiol. Inf. 111:209–219; Humphrey,

T. 1994. Contamination of Shell Egg and

Contents with Salmonella Enteritidis: a

review. Intl. Jrnl. of Food Micro. 21:31–

40.

25. id, (Humphrey, T.).

26. Hammack, T., et al. Research note:

Growth of Salmonella Enteritidis in

Grade A Eggs During Prolonged Storage.

Poultry Sec. 1993; 72:373–377.

27. Kim, C., et al. 1989. Effect of Time and

Temperature Growth of Salmonella

Enteritidis in Experimentally Inoculated

Eggs. Avian Diseases. 33:735–742.

28. Humphrey, T.J. 1990. Growth of

Salmonella in Intact Shell Eggs:

Influence of Storage Temperature. Vet.

Rec. 1236:292

29. Anderson, K.E., 1993. Refrigeration and

Removal of Heat from Eggs. MissetWorld Poultry 9:11

30. Saeed, A.M., and Koons, C.W. 1993.

Growth and Heat Resistance of

Salmonella Enteritidis in Refrigerated

and Abused Eggs. Jrnl. Food Prot.

57:592–595.

31. M. Taylor to J. Skeen, MC, dtd Sept. 5,

1996.

[FR Doc. 98–13056 Filed 5–14–98; 10:28 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Service

7 CFR Parts 273 and 274

RIN 0584–AC61

Food Stamp Program: Electronic

Benefits Transfer Benefit Adjustments

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed Rule.

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to revise

Food Stamp Program regulations

pertaining to State agencies’ ability to

make adjustments to a recipient account

in an Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT)

system, in order to correct a system

error or an out-of-balance condition.

EBT stakeholders have proposed the

changes so that States and their

processors can correct errors when they

are identified, rather than 10 days after

the advance notice has been sent to the

household. The changes would enable

State agencies to correct errors in a more

timely manner, and bring EBT closer in

line with current commercial Electronic

Funds Transfer (EFT) practices. This

rule also proposes to revise the formula
27512 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Proposed Rules

for recovering funds under the representation rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 20, 1998, to be assured of

consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted to Jeffrey N. Cohen, Chief,

Electronic Benefit Transfer Branch,

Benefit Redemption Division, Food and

Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park

Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia,

22302. Comments may also be datafaxed

to the attention of Mr. Cohen at (703)

605–0232, or by e-mail to

jefflcohen@fcs.usda.gov. Written

comments will be open for public

inspection at the office of the Food and

Nutrition Service during regular

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,

Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park

Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia,

Room 718.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions regarding this rulemaking

should be addressed to Mr. Cohen at the

above address or by telephone at (703)

305–2517.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule has been

determined to be non-significant for

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and

therefore was not reviewed by the Office

of Management and Budget.

Public Law 104–4

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.

104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

the Food and Nutrition Service

generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local or

tribal governments, in the aggregrate, or

to the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any one year. When such a

statement is needed for a rule, Section

205 of the UMRA generally requires the

Food and Nutrition Service to identify

and consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives and adopt the

least costly, more cost-effective or least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objectives of the rule.

This rule contains no Federal

mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of Title II of UMRA) for

State, local and tribal governments or

the private sector of $100 million or

more in any one year. Thus this rule is

not subject to the requirements of

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 12372

The Food Stamp Program is listed in

the Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance under No. 10.551. For the

reasons set forth in the final rule in 7

CFR part 3015, subpart V and related

Notice (48 FR 29115), this Program is

excluded from the scope of Executive

Order 12372 which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed with

regard to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5

U.S.C. 601–612). Shirley Watkins, the

Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and

Consumer Service, has certified that this

proposed rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. State and local

welfare agencies will be the most

affected to the extent that they

administer the Program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain reporting

or recordkeeping requirements subject

to approval by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(44 U.S.C. 3507).

Executive Order 12778

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule is intended to have

preemptive effect with respect to any

State or local laws, regulations or

policies which conflict with its

provisions or which would otherwise

impede its full implementation. This

rule is not intended to have retroactive

effect unless so specified in the

‘‘Effective Date’’ paragraph of this

preamble. Prior to any judicial challenge

to the provisions of this rule or the

application of its provisions, all

applicable administrative procedures

must be exhausted. In the Food Stamp

Program the administrative procedures

are as follows: (1) For Program benefit

recipients—State administrative

procedures issued pursuant to 7 U.S.C.

2020(e)(1) and 7 CFR 273.15; (2) for

State agencies—administrative

procedures issued pursuant to 7 U.S.C.

2023 set out at 7 CFR 276.7 for rules

related to non-quality control (QC)

liabilities or Part 283 for rules related to

QC liabilities; (3) for Program retailers

and wholesalers—administrative

procedures issued pursuant to 7 U.S.C.

2023 set out at 7 CFR 278.8.

Background

Adjustments

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)

has been contacted by a number of State

agencies and other interested

stakeholders regarding its policy on

making adjustments to EBT-issued

benefits when a system error has

resulted in an out-of-balance condition.

During normal EBT processing for an

authorized transaction, settlement is

completed when the transaction

acquirer has been properly credited for

an amount equal to the amount debited

from the household’s benefit allotment.

System malfunctions, however, can

cause an interruption to this process.

For purposes of this proposed

regulation, an out-of-balance settlement

condition exists when system errors or

other technical malfunctions cause an

interruption to the end-to-end

settlement process from acquirer back to

issuer, resulting in a settlement

condition that does not reflect the

authorized transaction. In the

commercial EFT environment, such

conditions are routinely corrected via a

manual adjustment to the customer’s

account without notification to the

account holder. In this proposed rule,

an adjustment is defined as a debit or

credit transaction initiated to correct a

system error or to correct an out-ofbalance condition identified in the

settlement process. Current food stamp

regulations, however, do not allow such

adjustments without prior notification

to the food stamp household.

Regulations found at 7 CFR

274.12(f)(4) require that State agencies

establish a date when the household’s

benefits become available to them each

month. By regulation, State agencies are

not allowed to make adjustments to the

food stamp allotment after the

availability date. This is in keeping with

the coupon system which has no

mechanism to retrieve benefits after

they have been issued to the household.

However, FNS recognizes that EBT

provides additional tools that were not

available in the coupon system.

Corrections to technical errors can be

made quickly and accurately, where

previously, in the paper system, they

could not be made. Commercial

operating rules for EFT systems and the

QUEST EBT operating rules have

provisions which require adjustments

for system errors. (The QUEST operating

rules set forth EBT requirements for

those state agencies that choose to issue

benefits under the QUEST service

mark.) This proposed rule would allow

adjustments, after the availability date,

to correct a system error.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27513

Proposing this change leads to the

need to propose a second change.

Section 11(e)(10) of the Food Stamp Act

of 1977, as amended, gives households

the right to a fair hearing over any

action that affects their participation in

the program. This section stipulates that

to exercise this right households must

request a fair hearing in a timely manner

following receipt of an individual notice

of the agency’s action. Further,

households have the right to delay the

State agency’s action and receive

benefits at the previous level, pending a

decision by the hearing official.

Regulations implementing these

provisions of the Act and signifying

when a notice of action is necessary are

found in § 273.15.

With some exceptions, which are

specified in the regulation, households

must be given an advance notice of 10

days before reduction in benefits can be

put in place. The excepted situations in

the regulation allow for concurrent

benefit adjustment and notice—referred

to as adequate notice. That is, State

agencies are allowed to notify

households at the same time as an

action is taken.

The nature of EBT settlement

adjustments makes timeliness critical. A

10-day advanced notice, as required by

current regulation, could have a

negative impact on the State agency’s

ability to correct the out-of-balance

condition. For example, to provide

notice 10 days prior to the adjustment

action could risk benefits no longer

being available since, unlike

certification actions, the household has

immediate access to the benefits in

question. For this reason, in

§ 273.13(a)(3)(vii), we propose that State

agencies be allowed to send an adequate

notice when the action is taken. This

would allow the error condition to be

corrected expeditiously, while

preserving the household’s right to

adequate notice and a fair hearing.

In order to ensure that the rights of

the household are protected, this rule

proposes to only allow adjustments

under the following conditions:

(1) Adjustments would not be allowed

against future month benefits, i.e,

against those benefits that were not in

the account at the time of the original

transaction.

(2) In those cases in which a

household no longer has benefits

available from the issuance month, this

rule proposes that the funds may be

recovered using the re-presentation

procedures set forth in 7 CFR 274.12(l).

If, however, there are sufficient benefits

remaining to cover only part of the

adjustment, the adjustment may be

made using the remaining balance, with

the difference being subject to the representation procedures.

(3) If the household is no longer

receiving benefits, the State agency is

under no further obligation to recover

the funds.

(4) The household shall be given

adequate notice at the time of the

adjustment in accordance with

procedures set forth in 7 CFR

273.13(a)(3). An adequate notice

includes an explanation of the action

being taken, the reason for the action,

the household’s right to a fair hearing,

and the household’s right to continued

benefits.

(5) If the household chooses to have

a fair hearing and elects to have benefits

continued pending the fair hearing

decision, the State agency would be

required to re-credit the adjusted

amount until the dispute is adjudicated.

If the hearing finds in favor of the State

agency, the State agency would reprocess the adjustment (debit) for the

full amount credited at the time of the

fair hearing request. If there are no

benefits remaining in the household’s

account at the time the State agency

action is upheld, the State agency shall

make the adjustment from the next

month’s benefit. If the household is no

longer receiving benefits when the fair

hearing decision is rendered, the State

agency would be under no further

obligation to recover the funds. An

adjustment would not be made if the

affected retailer is no longer on the EBT

system.

(6) Adjustments would only be

allowed when auditable documentation

is available to substantiate the out-ofbalance condition.

Finally, it has come to the

Department’s attention that EBT

regulations do not provide time frames

by which system errors must be

resolved. The Department, therefore,

proposes that all system errors be

corrected within 5 business days. After

5 business days, any recovery of funds

from a recipient’s account must be

handled through the re-presentation

process. The Department believes that

unless the adjustment is made within a

reasonable time, recipients will be

unable to understand the connection

between the original transaction and the

adjustment action. The 5-day time frame

also ensures that households negatively

impacted by a system error will not

have to wait unreasonably long periods

of time for resolution.

Re-presentations

Current regulations give State

agencies the option to implement a representation system to recoup certain

losses in instances specified in 7 CFR

274.12(l). Regulations at 7 CFR

274.12(l)(1)(iii) stipulate that the rate of

re-presentation be $50 for the first

month and $10 or 10 percent—

whichever is greater—in subsequent

months, until the re-presentation is

completely repaid. These amounts were

originally selected so that the electronic

system would be consistent with the

claims process in place in the coupon

system. Some State agencies have

argued that the variation in the rate of

re-presentation for the first month and

subsequent months makes it particularly

difficult to implement an automated representation system. Currently, only one

State agency has implemented representation because of the burden of

programming a system which would

meet these requirements. Therefore, the

Department proposes that the required

rate differentiation between the first

month and subsequent months be

eliminated; the State agency would have

the option to debit the benefit allotment

of a household following the

insufficient funds transaction in an

amount equal to at least $10, but no

higher than 10 percent of the allotment.

This deduction would be repeated on a

monthly basis until the re-presentation

is completely repaid. State agencies may

choose to recover funds at an amount

less than 10% of the allotment, but shall

apply the lesser repayment amount to

all households.

Implementation

The Department is proposing that the

provisions of this rulemaking be

implemented 30 days after publication

of the final rule. The Department also

proposes to allow variances resulting

from implementation of the provisions

of the final rule to be excluded from

error analysis for 120 days from the

required implementation date, in

accordance with 7 CFR 275.12(d)(2)(vii).

List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 273

Administrative practice and

procedures, Aliens, Claims, Food

stamps, Grant programs—social

programs, Penalties, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Social

security, Students.

7 CFR Part 274

Administrative procedures and

practices, Food stamps, Grant

programs—social programs, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth

in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 273 and

274 are proposed to be amended as

follows:
27514 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Proposed Rules

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

parts 273 and 274 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011–2032.

PART 273—CERTIFICATION OF

ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS

2. In § 273.13, a new paragraph

(a)(3)(vii) is added to read as follows:

§ 273.13 Notice of adverse action.

(a) * * *

(3) * * *

(vii) An EBT system-error has

occurred during the redemption

process, resulting in an out-of-balance

settlement condition. The State agency

shall adjust the benefit in accordance

with § 274.12 of this chapter.

* * * * *

3. In § 273.15, the fourth sentence of

paragraph (k)(1) is revised and three

new sentences are added after the fourth

sentence to read as follows:

§ 273.15 Fair hearings.

* * * * *

(k) Continuation of benefits.

(1) * * * If the State agency action is

upheld by the hearing decision, a claim

against the household shall be

established for all overissuances except

in the case of an EBT adjustment, in

which case another adjustment (debit)

shall be made immediately to the

household’s account for the total

amount erroneously credited when the

fair hearing was requested. If there are

no benefits remaining in the

household’s account at the time the

State agency action is upheld, the State

agency shall make the adjustment from

the next month’s benefits. If the

household is no longer receiving

benefits at the time of the fair hearing

decision, the State agency is under no

further obligation to recover the debt.

An adjustment shall not be done if the

affected retailer is no longer on the EBT

system. * * *

* * * * *

PART 274—ISSUANCE AND USE OF

COUPONS

4. In § 274.12:

a. Paragraph (f)(4) is revised;

b. Paragraph (f)(7)(iii) is amended by

removing the second sentence;

c. Paragraph (l) introductory text is

redesignated as the first sentence of

paragraph (l)(1) introductory text;

d. Paragraph (l)(1) introductory text is

amended by redesignating the last

sentence as the introductory text of

paragraph (l);

e. Paragraph (l)(1)(iii) is revised;

f. Paragraphs (l)(2), (l)(3), (l)(4), and

(l)(5) are redesignated as (l)(3), (l)(4),

(l)(5), and (l)(6); and

g. A new paragraph (l)(2) is added.

The revisions and additions read as

follows:

§ 274.12 Electronic Benefit Transfer

system issuance approval standards.

* * * * *

(f) Household participation * * *

(4) Issuance of benefits. State agencies

shall establish an availability date for

household access to their benefits and

inform households of this date.

(i) The State agency may make

adjustments to benefits posted to

household accounts after the posting

process is complete but prior to the

availability date for household access in

the event benefits are erroneously

posted.

(ii) A State may make adjustments to

an account after the availability date

only to correct an auditable, out-ofbalance settlement condition that occurs

during the redemption process as a

result of a system error.

(A) Adjustments shall be made no

later than 5 business days after the outof-balance condition occurred.

(B) Adjustments shall not be made

against a future month’s benefit. If there

are sufficient benefits remaining to

cover only part of the adjustment, the

adjustment may be made with the

remaining balance.

(C) The household must be given, at

a minimum, adequate notice in

accordance with § 273.13 of this

chapter.

(D) Should the household dispute the

adjustment, the benefits must be recredited to the household’s account

pending resolution.

(E) Should a State agency wish to

process an adjustment against future

month benefits, such an action shall be

in accordance with re-presentation

procedures found in paragraph (l) of this

section.

(iii) The appropriate management

controls and procedures for accessing

benefit accounts after the posting shall

be instituted to ensure that no

unauthorized adjustments are made in

accordance with paragraph (f)(7)(iii) of

this section.

* * * * *

(l) Re-presentation. * * *

(1) * * *

(iii) The State agency may debit the

benefit allotment of a household

following the insufficient funds

transaction in any amount which equals

at least $10 or up to 10% of the

transaction. This amount will be

deducted monthly until the total owed

is paid. State agencies may opt to represent at a level that is less than the

10% maximum, however, this lesser

amount must be applied to all

households.

(2) When a system-error has resulted

in an out-of-balance condition at

settlement, and the State agency is

unable to recover an erroneous credit as

an adjustment, a re-presentation may be

made as follows:

(i) the state agency shall debit the

benefit allotment of a household

monthly in an amount equal to at least

$10 or up to 10% of the allotment until

the re-presentation is completely paid.

(ii) notice shall be provided prior to

the month re-presentation occurs and

shall state the amount of the reduction

in the benefit allotment.

* * * * *

Dated: May 12, 1998.

George A. Braley,

Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition

Service.

[FR Doc. 98–13227 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–30–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–CE–05–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Alexander

Schleicher Segelflugzeugbau Model

ASW–19 Sailplanes

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 certain

Alexander Schleicher Segelflugzeugbau

(Alexander Schleicher) Model ASW–19

sailplanes. The proposed action would

require inspecting the tow release cable

guide fittings for the correct mounting,

and, if the fittings are mounted in the

front of the bulkhead, moving the fitting

to the rear of the bulkhead. The

proposed AD is the result of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI) issued by the airworthiness

authority for Germany. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent premature release of

the tow cable during take-off, which

could result in loss of the sailplane.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 26, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation