Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 64131

equipped with a governor and all will

need the improved throttle governor

installed.

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 proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 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

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained 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 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113,

44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing Amendment 39–4645 (48 FR

21894, May 16, 1983), and by adding a

new airworthiness directive (AD) to

read as follows:

Robinson Helicopter Company: Docket No.

95–SW–27–AD. Supersedes AD 82–23–

51, Amendment 39–4645.

Applicability: Model R22 helicopters,

serial numbers (S/N) 0002 to 2537,

certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopter

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

helicopters that have been modified, altered,

or repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must use the authority

provided in paragraph (e) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition, or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any helicopter

from the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required within the next 30

days after the effective date of this AD, unless

accomplished previously.

To minimize the possibility of pilot

mismanagement of the main rotor (M/R)

revolutions-per-minute (RPM), which could

result in unrecoverable M/R blade stall and

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter,

accomplish the following:

(a) Adjust the A569–1 or –5 low-RPM

warning unit so that the warning horn and

caution light activate when the M/R RPM is

between 96% and 97% rotor RPM in

accordance with the procedures contained in

the Model R22 maintenance manual.

(b) For Model R22 helicopters that do not

have a governor currently installed, install a

Robinson Helicopter Company KI–67–2

Governor Field Installation Kit in accordance

with the kit instructions.

(c) For Model R22 helicopters that have a

throttle/collective governor currently

installed, upgrade the governor with a

Robinson Helicopter Company KI–67–3

Governor Upgrade Kit in accordance with the

kit instructions.

(d) Upon accomplishment of paragraph (b)

or (c) of this AD, insert pages 2–2 and 2–7

of the FAA-approved Robinson Helicopter

Company R22 Rotorcraft Flight Manual,

revised July 6, 1995, into each Model R22

helicopter’s flight manual, and make penand-ink changes to page 2–7 to delete the

phrase ‘‘If equipped with RPM governor,’’

and add the phrase ‘‘with an instructor pilot’’

so that the affected limitation will state

‘‘Flight prohibited with governor selected off,

with exceptions for system malfunction and

emergency procedures training with an

instructor pilot.’’ Also, delete the phrase ‘‘If

not equipped with RPM governor,’’ so that

the affected limitation will state ‘‘Maximum

power-on RPM required during takeoff,

climb, or level flight below 500 feet AGL or

above 5000 feet density altitude.’’

(e) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used when approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA.

Operators shall submit their requests through

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspectors, who

may concur or comment and then send it to

the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office.

(f) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the helicopter to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December

6, 1995.

Daniel P. Salvano,

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–30422 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

15 CFR Part 2013

Weekly Allocation of NAFTA TariffRate Quotas for Fresh Tomatoes

AGENCY: Office of the Untied States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Office of the United

States Trade Representative is

considering a proposal to allocate on a

weekly basis the seasonal tariff-rate

quotas for fresh tomatoes which were

established under the North American

Free Trade Agreement. Public comment

is invited.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before March 13, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to Leonard W. Condon, Deputy

Assistant United States Trade

Representative for Agricultural Affairs,

Office of the United States Trade

Representative, 600 17th Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20508. Envelopes

should be marked: ‘‘Tomato ANPR’’.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leonard W. Condon (202) 395–9564.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Article

302(4) of the North American Free

Trade Agreement (NAFTA) provides

that each NAFTA party ‘‘ * * * may

adopt or maintain import measures to

allocate in-quota imports made pursuant

to a tariff rate quota set out in Annex

302.2, provided that such measures do

not have trade restrictive effects on

imports additional to those caused by

the imposition of the tariff rate quota.’’

Section 321(c) of the North American

Free Trade Agreement Implementation

Act (19 U.S.C. 3391(c)) provides that in

‘‘implementing the tariff rate quotas set

out in the United States Schedule to

Annex 302.2 of the Agreement, the

President shall take such action as may

be necessary to ensure that imports of

agricultural goods do not disrupt the

orderly marketing of commodities in the
64132 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1This provision of the Act is codified at 7 U.S.C.

6p(b) (1994) and states that:

The Commission shall issue regulations to require

new registrants, within 6 months after receiving

such registration, to attend a training session, and

all other registrants to attend periodic training

sessions, to ensure that registrants understand their

responsibilities to the public under this Act,

including responsibilities to observe just and

equitable principles of trade, any rule or regulation

of the Commission, any rule of any appropriate

contract market, registered futures association, or

other self-regulatory organization, or any other

applicable Federal or state law, rule or regulation.

2 58 FR 19575, 19584–19587, 19593–19594 (Apr.

15, 1993).

United States.’’ The President has

delegated this authority with respect to

the tomato tariff-rate quotas (TRQ’s) to

the United States Trade Representative

(USTR).

Concern has been expressed about the

impact on domestic markets of surges in

imports of Mexican tomatoes.

Allocation of the existing seasonal

TRQ’s on a weekly basis is an option

which could address that concern.

USTR is considering that option and

seeking public comment.

Mexico typically supplies over 90

percent of U.S. fresh tomato imports.

During the winter months, more than 25

percent of the fresh tomatoes consumed

in the United States are grown in

Mexico.

In accordance with terms of the

NAFTA, this proposal would affect only

tomatoes imported into the United

States from Mexico during the periods

March 1 through July 14 through the

year 2002 and November 15 through

February until February 2003. Tomatoes

entered from Mexico eligible for the inquota tariff would be charged the

declining NAFTA rate. All other

Mexican tomatoes would be charged the

most favored nation rate.

Tariffs on tomatoes imported from

Mexico during the period July 15

through November 14 are being phased

out over five years. No TRQ’s apply

from July 15 through November 14.

Entries during this period would be

unaffected.

Allocation Methodology: One method

for allocating the in-quota quantity for

each of the tariff-rate quotas would be

to distribute the specified quantity

evenly on a weekly basis throughout

each TRQ period. Since the in-quota

quantity for each TRQ increases each

year, an annual re-calculation of the

weekly TRQ’s would be necessary.

The following is an example of how

the in-quota quantity could be

distributed on a weekly basis:

According to U.S. Note 10 to

subchapter VI of chapter 99 of the HTS,

for the period November 15, 1995

through February 29, 1996, the in-quota

quantity is 177,469,000 kilograms (kg.).

The seasonal TRQ would be divided

evenly into weekly allocations. The

period from November 15, 1995,

through February 29, 1996, includes 14

complete weeks and portions of two

weeks at the beginning and end of the

period. To calculate the weekly

allocation for the season, the total

seasonal TRQ of 177,469,000 kg would

be divided by 107, the total number of

days in the period. A week would be

defined as a seven-day period running

from Monday through Sunday. The

daily amount would be multiplied times

7 to establish an allocation for each of

14 full weeks. For the period November

15 through November 19, the daily

amount would be multiplied by 5 and

for the February 26 through February 29

period, the daily amount would be

multiplied by 4. This establishes a

weekly allocation of 11,610,121 kg. for

each of the 14 full weeks, an allocation

of 8,292,248 kg. for the November 15–

18, 1995, period, and 6,634,358 kg. for

the February 26–29, 1996, period.

For the period November 15, 1995,

through February 29, 1996, the tariff on

tomatoes imported form Mexico within

the weekly quotas would be 2.6 cents

per kilogram. The tariff on any amounts

which exceed the weekly quotas would

be 3.2 cents per kilogram.

USTR is particularly interested in

comments from the public which

address the following points:

(a) To what extent do surges in

imports of Mexican tomatoes disrupt, or

threaten to disrupt, the U.S. market for

fresh tomatoes?

(b) Would a weekly allocation of the

current seasonal TRQ’s be an effective

mechanism for moderating any

disruption that might otherwise occur?

(c) If the seasonal TRQ is to be subdivided into weekly TRQ’s, how should

it be equitably allocated among the

weeks?

(d) Are there alternative mechanisms

available to cushion the impact of

surges in imports of Mexican tomatoes

that could be more effective, but still

consistent with U.S. obligations under

NAFTA?

Written Comments

Comments on the above Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are

invited. Written comments should be

directed to Leonard W. Condon, Deputy

Assistant United States Trade

Representative for Agricultural Affairs,

Office of the United States Trade

Representative, Washington, DC, 20508.

Comments, with two copies, should be

received by March 13, 1996.

Michael Kantor,

United States Trade Representative.

[FR Doc. 95–30501 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 3

Ethics Training for Registrants

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On July 22, 1994, the

Commodity Futures Trading

Commission (Commission) proposed

amendments to Rule 3.34, which

governs ethics training for Commission

registrants. The Commission has

published a release announcing the

adoption of those rule amendments in

the Federal Register on December 13,

1995. The Commission also is proposing

to amend Rule 3.34 to require that

persons who seek to provide ethics

training must present satisfactory

evidence that they meet a proficiency

testing requirement established by a

registered futures association and

possess a minimum of three years of

relevant experience. The Commission is

also proposing to amend Rule 3.34 to

eliminate the provision permitting stateaccredited entities to provide ethics

training without being subject to the

requirements pertaining to other

providers under the rule.

DATES: Comments must be received by

January 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

the Office of the Secretariat, Commodity

Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st

Street NW., Washington, DC 20581 and

should refer to ‘‘Ethics Training for

Registrants.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lawrence B. Patent, Associate Chief

Counsel or Myra R. Silberstein,

Attorney-Advisor, Division of Trading

and Markets, 1155 21st Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20581. Telephone

(202) 418–5450.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 210 of the Futures Trading

Practices Act of 1992 added a new

paragraph (b) to Section 4p of the

Commodity Exchange Act (Act) to

mandate ethics training for persons

required to be registered under the Act.1

On April 6, 1993, the Commission

adopted Rule 3.34 to implement this

Congressional mandate.2 In September,

1993, the Commission issued a Federal

Register release to clarify the

procedures to be followed by persons