Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30655

* * * * *

4. Section 319.56–2aa would be

revised to read as follows:

§ 319.56–2aa Administrative instructions

governing the entry of cantaloupe,

honeydew melons, and watermelon from

Brazil and Venezuela.

Cantaloupe, honeydew melons, and

watermelon may be imported into the

United States from Brazil and Venezuela

only under permit, and only in

accordance with this section and all

other applicable requirements of this

subpart:

(a) The cantaloupe, honeydew

melons, or watermelon must have been

grown in the area of Brazil or the area

of Venezuela considered by the Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service to

be free of the South American cucurbit

fly, (Anastrepha grandis), in accordance

with § 319.56–2(e)(4) of this subpart. In

addition, all shipments of cantaloupe,

honeydew melons, and watermelon

must be accompanied by a

phytosanitary certificate issued either

by the Departmento de Defesa e

Inspec ̧a ̃o Vegetal (Brazilian Department

of Plant Health and Inspection) or the

Servicio Autonomo de Sanidad

Agropecuaria (the plant protection

service of Venezuela) that includes a

declaration indicating that the

cantaloupe or melons were grown in an

area recognized to be free of the South

American cucurbit fly.

(1) Area considered free of the South

American cucurbit fly in Brazil. The

following area in Brazil is considered

free of the South American cucurbit fly:

That portion of Brazil bounded on the

north by the Atlantic Ocean; on the east

by the River Assu (Acu) from the

Atlantic Ocean to the city of Assu; on

the south by Highway BR 304 from the

city of Assu (Acu) to Mossoro, and by

Farm Road RN–015 from Mossoro to the

Ceara State line; and on the west by the

Ceara State line to the Atlantic Ocean.

(2) Area considered free of the South

American cucurbit fly in Venezuela. The

following area in Venezuela is

considered free of the South American

cucurbit fly: The Paraguana Peninsula,

located in the State of Falcon, bounded

on the north and east by the Caribbean

Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of Coro

and an imaginary line dividing the

autonomous districts of Falcon and

Miranda, and on the west by the Gulf of

Venezuela.

(b) Shipping requirements. The

cantaloupe, honeydew melons, and

watermelon must be packed in an

enclosed container or vehicle, or must

be covered by a pest-proof screen or

plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the

United States.

(c) Labeling. All shipments of

cantaloupe, honeydew melons, and

watermelon must be labeled in

accordance with § 319.56–2(g) of this

subpart.

5. A new § 319.56–2gg would be

added to read as follows:

§ 319.56–2gg Administrative instructions;

conditions governing the entry of peppers

from Spain.

Peppers (fruit) (Capsicum spp.) may

be imported into the United States from

Spain only under permit, and only in

accordance with this section and all

other applicable requirements of this

subpart:

(a) The peppers must be grown in the

Almeria Province of Spain in pest-proof

greenhouses registered with, and

inspected by, the Spanish Ministry of

Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food

(MAFF);

(b) The peppers may be shipped only

from December 1 through April 30,

inclusive;

(c) Beginning October 1, and

continuing through April 30, MAFF

must set and maintain Mediterranean

fruit fly (Medfly) traps baited with

trimedlure inside the greenhouses at a

rate of four traps per hectare. In all

outside areas, including urban and

residential areas, within 8 kilometers of

the greenhouses, MAFF must set and

maintain Medfly traps baited with

trimedlure at a rate of four traps per

square kilometer. All traps must be

checked every 7 days;

(d) Capture of a single Medfly in a

registered greenhouse will immediately

halt exports from that greenhouse until

the Deputy Administrator determines

that the source of infestation has been

identified, that all Medflies have been

eradicated, and that measures have been

taken to preclude any future infestation.

Capture of a single Medfly within 2

kilometers of a registered greenhouse

will necessitate increased trap density

in order to determine whether there is

a reproducing population in the area.

Capture of two Medflies within 2

kilometers of a registered greenhouse

during a 1-month period will halt

exports from all registered greenhouses

within 2 kilometers of the capture, until

the source of infestation is determined

and all Medflies are eradicated;

(e) The peppers must be safeguarded

against fruit fly infestation from harvest

to export. Such safeguarding includes

covering newly harvested peppers with

fruit fly-proof mesh screen or plastic

tarpaulin while in transit to the packing

house and while awaiting packing, and

packing the peppers in fruit fly-proof

cartons, or cartons covered with fruit-fly

proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin, and

placing those cartons in enclosed

shipping containers for transit to the

airport and subsequent shipment to the

United States;

(f) The peppers must be packed for

shipment within 24 hours of harvest;

(g) During shipment, the peppers may

not transit other fruit fly-supporting

areas unless shipping containers are

sealed by MAFF with an official seal

whose number is noted on the

phytosanitary certificate; and

(h) A phytosanitary certificate issued

by MAFF and bearing the declaration,

‘‘These peppers were grown in

registered greenhouses in Almeria

Province in Spain,’’ must accompany

the shipment.

Done in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of

June, 1998.

Charles P. Schwalbe,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 98–14957 Filed 6–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 920

[Docket No. FV98–920–2 PR]

Kiwifruit Grown in California;

Temporary Suspension of an

Inspection Requirement

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This rule invites comments

on the temporary suspension of an

inspection requirement for kiwifruit

covered under the California kiwifruit

marketing order. The marketing order

regulates the handling of kiwifruit

grown in California, and is administered

locally by the Kiwifruit Administrative

Committee (Committee). Currently,

certification of any kiwifruit which is

inspected and certified as meeting

grade, size, quality, or maturity

requirements in effect under the

marketing order is valid until December

31 of the current fiscal year or 21 days

from the date of inspection, whichever

is later. Any kiwifruit not shipped

before the end of this certification

period must be reinspected and

recertified before shipping. This rule

would temporarily suspend this

provision for the 1998–99 fiscal year

and would enable handlers to ship

kiwifruit without the necessity for

reinspection and recertification and the

costs associated with such

requirements. This temporary
30656 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules

suspension was unanimously

recommended by the Committee and is

expected to reduce handler costs and to

increase grower returns, while

continuing to provide consumers with

the same high quality fruit as is

available under current requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit written comments

concerning this proposal. Comments

must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Fruit

and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA,

Room 2525–S, P.O. Box 96456,

Washington, DC 20090–6456; Fax: (202)

205–6632. All comments should

reference the docket number and the

date and page number of this issue of

the Federal Register and will be

available for public inspection in the

Office of the Docket Clerk during regular

business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose

Aguayo, Marketing Specialist, California

Marketing Field Office, Fruit and

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 2202

Monterey Street, suite 102B, Fresno,

California 93721; telephone: (209) 487–

5901, Fax: (209) 487–5906; or George

Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing

Order Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room

2525–S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456; telephone: (202) 720–

2491, Fax: (202) 205–6632. Small

businesses may request information on

compliance with this regulation by

contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room

2525–S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456; telephone: (202) 720–

2491, Fax: (202) 205–6632.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

proposal is issued under Marketing

Order No. 920 (7 CFR part 920), as

amended, regulating the handling of

kiwifruit grown in California,

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘order.’’

The order is effective under the

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act

of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674),

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’

The Department of Agriculture

(Department) is issuing this rule in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This proposal has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended

to have retroactive effect. This proposal

will not preempt any State or local laws,

regulations, or policies, unless they

present an irreconcilable conflict with

this rule.

The Act provides that administrative

proceedings must be exhausted before

parties may file suit in court. Under

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any

handler subject to an order may file

with the Secretary a petition stating that

the order, any provision of the order, or

any obligation imposed in connection

with the order is not in accordance with

law and request a modification of the

order or to be exempted therefrom. A

handler is afforded the opportunity for

a hearing on the petition. After the

hearing the Secretary would rule on the

petition. The Act provides that the

district court of the United States in any

district in which the handler is an

inhabitant, or has his or her principal

place of business, has jurisdiction to

review the Secretary’s ruling on the

petition, provided an action is filed not

later than 20 days after the date of the

entry of the ruling.

This proposal invites comments on

the temporary suspension of an

inspection requirement for kiwifruit

covered under the California kiwifruit

marketing order. This rule would

temporarily suspend the current

limitation of the inspection certificate

validation period and would enable

handlers to ship kiwifruit without the

necessity for reinspection and

recertification. The rule would be in

effect for the 1998–99 fiscal year.

Section 920.55 of the order requires

that prior to handling any variety of

California kiwifruit, such kiwifruit shall

be inspected by the Federal or FederalState Inspection Service (inspection

service) and certified as meeting the

applicable grade, size, quality, or

maturity requirements in effect pursuant

to § 920.52 or § 920.53. Section 920.55

also provides authority for the

establishment through the order’s

administrative rules and regulations of a

period prior to shipment during which

inspections must be performed.

Section 920.155 of the order’s

administrative rules and regulations

prescribes that the certification of grade,

size, quality, and maturity of kiwifruit

pursuant to § 920.52 or § 920.53 during

each fiscal year is valid until December

31 of such year or 21 days from the date

of inspection, whichever is later. Any

inspected kiwifruit to be shipped after

the certification period lapses is

required to be reinspected and

recertified before shipping.

At its meeting on February 11, 1998,

the Committee unanimously

recommended suspending § 920.155 for

the 1998–99 fiscal year. The Committee

made this recommendation in an effort

to reduce the additional costs of

reinspection. In recent years, after

cultural and post-harvest expenses have

been paid, many kiwifruit growers have

lost money or merely recovered their

production costs with little or no profit.

Because storage and handling

operations have improved in the

industry, and as a result of a fruit

ripening program being utilized by the

industry, the Committee believes it may

no longer be necessary to have fruit

reinspected to provide consumers with

a high quality product. The

recommended suspension is for a oneyear period so the effects can be

evaluated. The Committee further

recommended that this suspension be in

effect no later than September 1, 1998,

to enable handlers to make operational

decisions in time for the 1998 harvest

and shipping season.

When the order was promulgated,

authority was included to limit the

length of time inspection certificates

would be valid. This authority was

provided because the condition of

kiwifruit can change while it is held in

cold storage. The current inspection

requirements are intended to help

ensure that all fruit meets order

requirements prior to shipment.

The industry has estimated that

approximately 30 percent of the

inspected kiwifruit is subject to

reinspection each year at a cost of

approximately $0.03 per tray equivalent

(a tray equivalent being 7 pounds of

kiwifruit), and that a minimal amount,

approximately 1 percent, of reinspected

fruit fails to meet order requirements.

Although the inspection service has

not yet established the 1998–99

inspection rates, based on the past

season’s rates, total reinspection costs

for the industry are expected to be

approximately $50,000 for the 1998–99

fiscal year.

Handlers would like to reduce

handling costs and believe that they can

do so by conducting their own

reinspection of fruit before shipment,

when necessary. The Committee

believes that consumers would be

provided with the same high quality

fruit as available under current

reinspection requirements. Handlers

have continually upgraded their cold

storage and handling operations,

resulting in fewer fruit condition

problems. In recent seasons, improved

storage facilities have resulted in fewer

storage-related condition problems,

such as black sooty mold. In addition,

processing and packing equipment

utilized by handlers has improved in

recent years, resulting in less damage to

fruit in the handling process, thus

resulting in fewer condition problems.

Finally, the industry’s ripening program

has resulted in earlier seasonal

shipments and a decreased amount of

inspected fruit remaining in cold storage
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30657

beyond the maximum time for which an

inspection certificate is valid.

The Committee believes that

eliminating the reinspection

requirement would not have a negative

impact on any aspect of the industry;

however, it wishes to approach this

issue with caution. Thus, the Committee

recommended temporarily suspending

§ 920.155 for the 1998–99 fiscal year as

a ‘‘pilot test,’’ so it can evaluate the

results after the season. The Committee

expects this action to reduce handler

costs by $50,000, resulting in increased

grower returns, while continuing to

provide consumers with the same high

quality fruit as is available under

current reinspection requirements.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

has considered the economic impact of

this action on small entities.

Accordingly, AMS has prepared this

initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit

regulatory actions to the scale of

business subject to such actions in order

that small businesses will not be unduly

or disproportionately burdened.

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the

Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are

unique in that they are brought about

through group action of essentially

small entities acting on their own

behalf. Thus, both statutes have small

entity orientation and compatibility.

There are approximately 60 handlers

of California kiwifruit subject to

regulation under the marketing order

and approximately 450 producers in the

production area. Small agricultural

producers are defined by the Small

Business Administration (13 CFR

121.601) as those whose annual receipts

are less than $500,000, and small

agricultural service firms are defined as

those whose annual receipts are less

than $5,000,000. One of the 60 handlers

subject to regulation has annual

kiwifruit sales of at least $5,000,000,

excluding receipts from any other

sources. The remaining 59 handlers

have annual receipts less than

$5,000,000, excluding receipts from

other sources. In addition, 10 of the 450

producers subject to regulation have

annual sales of at least $500,000,

excluding receipts from any other

sources. The remaining 440 producers

have annual sales less than $500,000,

excluding receipts from any other

sources. Therefore, a majority of

handlers and producers are classified as

small entities.

This proposal invites comments on

the temporary suspension of an

inspection requirement for kiwifruit

covered under the California kiwifruit

marketing order. This rule would

temporarily suspend the current

limitation of the inspection certificate

validation period and would enable

handlers to ship kiwifruit without the

necessity for reinspection and

recertification. The rule would be in

effect for the 1998–99 fiscal year.

Section 920.55 of the order requires

that prior to handling any variety of

California kiwifruit, such kiwifruit shall

be inspected by the inspection service

and certified as meeting the applicable

grade, size, quality, or maturity

requirements in effect pursuant to

§ 920.52 or § 920.53. Section 920.55 also

provides authority for the establishment

through the order’s administrative rules

and regulations of a period prior to

shipment during which inspections

must be performed.

Section 920.155 of the order’s

administrative rules and regulations

prescribes that the certification of grade,

size, quality, and maturity of kiwifruit

pursuant to § 920.52 or § 920.53 during

each fiscal year is valid until December

31 of such year or 21 days from the date

of inspection, whichever is later. Any

inspected kiwifruit to be shipped after

the certification period lapses is

required to be reinspected and

recertified before shipping.

At its meeting on February 11, 1998,

the Committee unanimously

recommended suspending § 920.155 for

the 1998–99 fiscal year. The Committee

made this recommendation in an effort

to reduce the additional costs of

reinspection. In recent years, after

cultural and post-harvest expenses have

been paid, many kiwifruit growers have

lost money or merely recovered their

production costs with little or no profit.

Also, because storage and handling

operations have improved in the

industry, and as a result of a fruit

ripening program being utilized by the

industry, the Committee believes it may

no longer be necessary to have fruit

reinspected to provide consumers with

a high quality product. The

recommended suspension is for a oneyear period so the effects can be

evaluated. The Committee further

recommended that this suspension be in

effect no later than September 1, 1998,

to enable handlers to make operational

decisions in time for the 1998 harvest

and shipping season.

When the order was promulgated,

authority was included to limit the

length of time inspection certificates

would be valid. This authority was

provided because the condition of

kiwifruit can change while it is held in

cold storage. The current inspection

requirements are intended to help

ensure that all fruit meets order

requirements prior to shipment.

The industry has estimated that

approximately 30 percent of the

inspected kiwifruit is subject to

reinspection each year at a cost of

approximately $0.03 per tray equivalent

(a tray equivalent being 7 pounds of

kiwifruit), and that a minimal amount,

approximately 1 percent, of reinspected

fruit fails to meet order requirements.

Although the inspection service has

not yet established the 1998–99

inspection rates, based on the past

season’s rates, total reinspection costs

for the industry are expected to be

approximately $50,000 for the 1998–99

fiscal year.

Handlers would like to reduce

handling costs and believe that they can

do so by conducting their own

reinspection of fruit before shipment,

when necessary. The Committee

believes that consumers would be

provided with the same high quality

fruit as available under current

reinspection requirements. Handlers

have continually upgraded their cold

storage and handling operations,

resulting in fewer fruit condition

problems. In recent seasons, improved

storage facilities have resulted in fewer

storage-related condition problems,

such as black sooty mold. In addition,

processing and packing equipment

utilized by handlers has improved in

recent years, resulting in less damage to

fruit in the handling process, thus

resulting in fewer fruit condition

problems. Finally, the industry’s

ripening program has resulted in earlier

seasonal shipments and a decreased

amount of inspected fruit remaining in

cold storage beyond the maximum time

for which an inspection certificate is

valid.

The Committee believes that

eliminating the reinspection

requirement would not have a negative

impact on any aspect of the industry;

however, it wishes to approach this

issue with caution. Thus, the Committee

recommended temporarily suspending

§ 920.155 for the 1998–99 fiscal year as

a ‘‘pilot test,’’ so it can evaluate the

results after the season. The Committee

expects this action to reduce handler

costs by $50,000, resulting in increased

grower returns, while continuing to

provide consumers with the same high

quality fruit as is available under

current reinspection requirements.

The 1998–99 kiwifruit crop is

estimated to be 10 to 12 million tray

equivalents (a tray equivalent being

equal to 7 pounds). Based on recent

experience, approximately 30 percent of

the inspected kiwifruit is subject to

reinspection. At the current estimates
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.