30658 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules

for the 1998–99 crop, that would

amount to 3.0 to 3.6 million tray

equivalents requiring reinspection. The

1998–99 reinspection fees have not yet

been established by the inspection

service, however, utilizing the 1997–98

rates ($0.032 per tray/volume fill/count

fill container, $0.047 per 3 layer/master

container, and $0.0047 per pound for

bins), it is estimated that the 1998–99

costs for reinspection would be around

$42,000. Adding mileage and overtime

fees charged by the inspection service

would result in total annual costs for

reinspection for the 1998–99 fiscal year

of approximately $50,000.

The Committee discussed a number of

alternatives to this rule, including

making inspection certificates valid to

January 31, or modifying the

reinspection process by requiring

inspection for condition only, but it was

determined that neither of these

alternatives would reduce reinspection

costs. The Committee also discussed the

possibility of reducing the sample size

from the current one-half of 1 percent;

however, the inspection service advised

the Committee that further reduction of

the sample size would jeopardize the

integrity of the inspection.

Another alternative discussed was the

elimination of in-line inspections

altogether, but this was determined to

be unacceptable to the industry. Use of

in-line inspection allows handlers to be

assured that the fruit is making grade at

the time of packing. Any problems that

may exist can be identified immediately

and corrected, thus avoiding the

additional costs of repacking at the time

of shipment.

The Committee also considered

increasing the use of inspection waivers

as a means to lower costs. However, the

Committee could not reach a consensus

on an acceptable and equitable means to

increase the issuance of waivers

throughout the industry, and, thus, it

was determined to be an unacceptable

alternative to this proposal.

As another possibility, the Committee

discussed alternative inspection

methods. It was decided that they

would not be a viable option at this

time.

Following discussion of these

alternatives, the Committee concluded

that temporarily suspending § 920.155

would be in the best interest of the

industry at this time, as it is expected

to save as much as $50,000 in

reinspection fees and to increase grower

returns, while continuing to provide

consumers with the same high quality

fruit as provided under current

reinspection requirements.

This action would not impose any

additional reporting or recordkeeping

requirements on either small or large

kiwifruit handlers. As with all Federal

marketing order programs, reports and

forms are periodically reviewed to

reduce information requirements and

duplication by industry and public

sector agencies.

The Department has not identified

any relevant Federal rules that

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this

rule.

The Committee’s February 11, 1998,

meeting was widely publicized

throughout the kiwifruit industry and

all interested persons were invited to

attend the meeting and participate in

Committee deliberations on all issues.

Like all Committee meetings, the

February 11, 1998, meeting was a public

meeting and all entities, both large and

small, were able to express views on

this issue. The Committee itself is

composed of 12 members. Two of these

members are handlers and producers, 9

are producers only, and one is a public

member. The majority of the Committee

members are small entities. In addition,

a survey on the options of eliminating

or keeping the reinspection requirement

was mailed to all growers and handlers

of California kiwifruit. Of the 485

surveys mailed, 159 were returned to

the Committee by the deadline of

February 6, 1998, for a response rate of

33 percent. Growers accounted for 77

percent of the total surveys returned by

the deadline, and of those, 67 percent

were in favor of eliminating

reinspection. Finally, interested persons

are invited to submit information on the

regulatory and informational impacts of

this action on small businesses.

A 30-day comment period is provided

to allow interested persons to respond

to this proposal, including any

regulatory and informational impacts of

this action on small businesses. Thirty

days is deemed appropriate because: (1)

The industry would like the changes

proposed in this rule to be in place by

September 1 to provide sufficient time

to plan for the upcoming marketing

season; and (2) this action was

unanimously recommended by the

Committee at a public meeting and is

not expected to be controversial. All

written comments received within the

comment period will be considered

before a final determination is made on

this matter.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 920

Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 920 is proposed to

be amended as follows:

PART 920—KIWIFRUIT GROWN IN

CALIFORNIA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 920 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

§ 920.155 [Suspended]

2. In Part 920, § 920.155 is suspended

in its entirety effective August 1, 1998,

through July 31, 1999.

Dated: May 29, 1998.

Sharon Bomer Lauritsen,

Acting Deputy Administrator, Fruit and

Vegetable Programs.

[FR Doc. 98–15001 Filed 6–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–CE–23–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Aviat

Aircraft, Inc. Models S–1S, S–1T, S–2,

S–2A, S–2S, and S–2B Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

revise Airworthiness Directive (AD) 96–

12–03 R1, which applies to Aviat

Aircraft, Inc. (Aviat) Models S–1S, S–

1T, S–2, S–2A, S–2S, and S–2B

airplanes that are equipped with aft

lower fuselage wing attach fittings

incorporating part number (P/N) 76090,

P/N 2–2107–1, or P/N 1–210–102. That

AD currently requires repetitively

inspecting the aft lower fuselage wing

attach fitting on both wings for cracks,

and modifying any cracked aft lower

fuselage wing attach fitting. Modifying

both aft lower fuselage wing attach

fittings eliminates the repetitive

inspection requirement of AD 96–12–03.

Aviat started incorporating modified aft

lower fuselage wing attach fittings on

newly manufactured airplanes

beginning with serial number 5337,

instead of 5349 as referenced in the

existing AD. This proposed AD would

retain the repetitive inspection and

possible modification requirements of

AD 96–12–03 R1, and would change the

applicability accordingly. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent possible in-flight

separation of the wing from the airplane

caused by a cracked fuselage wing

attach fitting.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30659

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 30, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–CE–23–

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

Aviat Aircraft, Inc., P.O. Box 1240,

Afton, Wyoming 83110; telephone: (307)

886–3151; facsimile: (307) 886–9674.

This information also may be examined

at the Rules Docket at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Roger Caldwell, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Denver Aircraft Certification

Office, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Room

214, Denver, Colorado 80249; telephone:

(303) 342–1086; facsimile: (303) 342–

1088.

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. 96–CE–23–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

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 96–CE–23–AD, Room 1558,

601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

Discussion

AD 96–12–03 R1, Amendment 39–

10109 (62 FR 44535, ugust 22, 1997),

currently requires the following on

Aviat Models S–1S, S–1T, S–2, S–2A,

S–2S, and S–2B airplanes that are

equipped with aft lower fuselage wing

attach fittings incorporating P/N 76090,

P/N 2–2107–1, or P/N 1–210–102:

—repetitively inspecting the aft lower

fuselage wing attach fitting on both

wings for cracks; and

—modifying any cracked aft lower

fuselage wing attach fitting.

Modifying both aft lower fuselage

wing attach fittings eliminates the

repetitive inspection requirement of

AD 96–12–03.

Accomplishment of the actions

required by AD 96–12–03 R1 is in

accordance with Aviat Service Bulletin

(SB) No. 25, dated April 3, 1996,

Revised November 12, 1996.

AD 96–12–03 R1 replaced AD 96–12–

03, Amendment 39–9645 (61 FR 28730,

June 6, 1996), and incorporated an

ending serial number of 5348 on the

Aviat Model S–2B airplanes. AD 96–12–

03 required the current actions on all

serial numbers of the affected airplanes.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since issuance of AD 96–12–03 R1,

Aviat has reported to the FAA that the

ending serial number for the Model S–

2B airplanes is incorrect. The correct

serial number should be 5336 instead of

5348.

Aviat has revised Service Bulletin No.

25 (dated April 3, 1996; Revised

November 12, 1996; Revised November

11, 1997) to reflect this serial number

change.

The FAA’s Determination

After examining the circumstances

and reviewing all available information

related to the incidents described above,

the FAA has determined that (1) the

applicability in AD 96–12–03 R1 of the

Aviat Model S–2B airplanes should be

changed from an ending serial number

of 5348 to 5336; and (2) AD action

should be taken to continue to prevent

possible in-flight separation of the wing

from the airplane caused by a cracked

fuselage wing attach fitting.

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other Aviat Models S–1S, S–

1T, S–2, S–2A, S–2S, and S–2B

airplanes of the same type design that

are equipped with aft lower fuselage

wing attach fittings incorporating P/N

76090, P/N 2–2107–1, or P/N1–210–102,

the FAA is proposing AD action to

revise AD 96–12–03 R1. The proposed

AD would retain the repetitive

inspection and possible modification

requirements of AD 96–12–03 R1, and

would change the applicability of the

Model S–2B airplanes from an ending

serial number of 5348 to an ending

serial number of 5336.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 500 airplanes

in the U.S. registry would be affected by

the proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 2 workhours per airplane

to accomplish the initial inspection, and

that the average labor rate is

approximately $60 an hour. Parts to

accomplish the inspections cost

approximately $100 per airplane. Based

on these figures, the total cost impact of

the proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $110,000. These figures

do not take into account the cost of

repetitive inspections. The FAA has no

way of determining how many

repetitive inspections each owner/

operator may incur over the life of each

airplane.

AD 96–12–03 R1 currently requires

the same actions on the affected

airplanes as is proposed in this NPRM.

The only difference between the

proposed AD and AD 96–12–03 R1 is a

change in the ending serial number of

the Model S–2B airplanes. Therefore,

the proposed AD has no additional cost

impact over that already required by AD

96–12–03 R1.

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
30660 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)

96–12–03 R1, Amendment 39–10109 (62

FR 44535, August 22, 1997), and by

adding a new AD to read as follows:

Aviat Aircraft, Inc.: Docket No. 96–CE–23–

AD; Revises AD 96–12–03 R1,

Amendment 39–10109.

Applicability: The following airplane

models and serial numbers, certificated in

any category, that are equipped with aft

lower fuselage wing attach fittings

incorporating part number (P/N) 76090, P/N

2–2107–1, or P/N 1–210–102, and where

these aft lower fuselage wing attach fittings

on both wings have not been modified in

accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT

INSTRUCTIONS section of one of the

following service bulletins (SB):

Service Bulletins

—Aviat SB No. 25, dated April 3, 1996,

Revised November 12, 1996, Revised

November 11, 1997;

—Aviat SB No. 25, dated April 3, 1996,

Revised November 12, 1996; or

—Aviat SB No. 25, dated April 3, 1996.

Airplanes Affected

—Models S–1S, S–1T, S–2, S–2A, and S–2S

airplanes, all serial numbers.

—Model S–2B airplanes, serial numbers 5000

through 5336.

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.

To prevent possible in-flight separation of

the wing from the airplane caused by a

cracked aft lower fuselage wing attach fitting,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS)

after October 3, 1997 (the effective date of AD

96–12–03 R1), unless already accomplished

(compliance with either AD 96–12–03 R1 or

AD 96–12–03), and thereafter at intervals not

to exceed 50 hours TIS, inspect the aft lower

fuselage wing attach fitting on both wings for

cracks. Accomplish these inspections in

accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT

INSTRUCTIONS section of one of the

following SB’s:

(1) Aviat SB No. 25, dated April 3, 1996,

Revised November 12, 1996, Revised

November 11, 1997;

(2) Aviat SB No. 25, dated April 3, 1996,

Revised November 12, 1996; or

(3) Aviat SB No. 25, dated April 3, 1996.

(b) If any cracked aft lower fuselage wing

attach fitting is found during any inspection

required by this AD, prior to further flight,

modify the cracked aft lower fuselage wing

attach fitting in accordance with the

ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS

section of one of the SB’s referenced in

paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of this AD.

Repetitive inspections are no longer

necessary on an aft lower fuselage wing

attachment fitting that was found cracked

and has the referenced modification

incorporated.

(c) Modifying the aft lower fuselage wing

attach fitting on both wings in accordance

with the ACCOMPLISHMENT

INSTRUCTIONS section of one of the SB’s

referenced in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and

(a)(3) of this AD is considered terminating

action for the repetitive inspection

requirement of this AD.

(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 initial or repetitive

compliance times that provides an equivalent

level of safety may be approved by the

Manager, Denver Aircraft Certification Office,

26805 E. 68th Avenue, Room 214, Denver,

Colorado 80249.

(1) The request shall be forwarded through

an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector,

who may add comments and then send it to

the Manager, Denver ACO.

(2) Alternative methods of compliance

approved in accordance with AD 96–12–03

R1 or AD 96–12–03 are considered approved

for this AD.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Denver ACO.

(f) All persons affected by this directive

may obtain copies of the document referred

to herein upon request to Aviat Aircraft, Inc.,

P.O. Box 1240, Afton, Wyoming 83110; or

may examine this document at the FAA,

Central Region, Office of the Regional

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

Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

(g) This amendment revises AD 96–12–03

R1, Amendment 39–10109.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May

29, 1998.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–14906 Filed 6–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–SW–55–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta

S.p.A. Model A109C and A109K2

Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

Agusta S.p.A. Model A109C and

A109K2 helicopters. This proposal

would require removing the main rotor

pitch link assemblies, measuring the

radial play of the upper and lower

spherical bearings (bearings), and

replacing any unairworthy bearings.

This proposal is prompted by four

reports of increased vibration of the

helicopters caused by wear in the

bearings of the main rotor pitch change

link assembly. The actions specified by

the proposed AD are intended to detect

unairworthy bearings on the pitch

change link assembly and to prevent

increased vibration and subsequent

reduced controllability of the helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–SW–55–

AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,

Fort Worth, Texas 76137. Comments

may be inspected at this location

between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Shep Blackman, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft