25420 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 21, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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 U.S.C 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing amendment 39–9218 (60 FR

22501, May 8, 1995), and by adding a

new airworthiness directive (AD), to

read as follows:

Beech Aircraft Corporation (formerly

DeHavilland; Hawker Siddeley; British

Aerospace, plc; Raytheon Corporate Jets,

Inc.): Docket 96–NM–54–AD. Supersedes

AD 95–10–01, Amendment 39–9218.

Applicability: Model Hawker 1000 and

BAe 125–1000A series airplanes, post

modification 259722C, certificated in any

category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise 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 (c) 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.

Note 2: Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe 125–

1000B series airplanes are similar in design

to the airplanes that are subject to the

requirements of this AD and, therefore, also

may be subject to the unsafe condition

addressed by this AD. However, as of the

effective date of this AD, those models are

not type certificated for operation in the

United States. Airworthiness authorities of

countries in which the Model BAe 125–

1000B series airplanes are approved for

operation should consider adopting

corrective action, applicable to those models,

that is similar to the corrective action

required by this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent failure of a fuel hose assembly

on the auxiliary power unit (APU), which

could result in a malfunction of the APU, a

potential fuel fire in the fuselage rear bay,

and reduced structural integrity of the

surrounding structure, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 30 days after May 23, 1995 (the

effective date of AD 95–10–01, amendment

39–9218), perform inspections to detect

discrepancies of the fuel feed hose

assemblies on the APU; an inspection to

assure proper positioning of the air leak

detection system; and an inspection of the

bleed air system for signs of leakage; in

accordance with paragraph 2.B. of the

Accomplishment Instructions of Raytheon

Service Bulletin SB 49–44, dated January 20,

1995.

(1) If no discrepancy is found: Thereafter,

following the last flight of each day, perform

an inspection to detect discoloration of the

fuel hose assembly (outlet from the fuel

pump box) on the APU, in accordance with

paragraph 2.B.(2) and 2.C. of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin.

(2) If any discrepancy is found, prior to

further flight, correct the discrepancy in

accordance with paragraph 2.B. of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin.

(b) Within 200 flight hours after the

effective date of this AD, replace the existing

conduit of the fuel feed hose for the auxiliary

power unit (APU) with new improved

conduit (modification 25A825A), in

accordance with Beech (Raytheon/Hawker)

Service Bulletin SB.49–47–25A825A, dated

August 1, 1995. Accomplishment of the

replacement constitutes terminating action

for paragraph (a) of this AD.

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Wichita

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate. Operators shall

submit their requests through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Wichita ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Wichita ACO.

(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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 14,

1996.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–12601 Filed 5–20–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 158

[Docket No. 27791; Notice No. 96–3A]

RIN 2120–AF69

Passenger Facility Charges

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPRM); extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: This document announces an

extension of the comment period on The

ANPRM entitled, ‘‘Passenger Facility

Charges’’ (61 FR 16678; April 16, 1996).

This comment period is extended from

May 16, 1996, until August 16, 1996.

The extension responds to the request of

the Air Transport Association of

America (ATA) and is needed to permit

ATA, and other affected parties,

additional time to develop comments

responsive to the ANPRM.

DATES: The comment period is being

extended from May 16, 1996, to August

16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: As stated in Notice No. 96–

3, comments should be mailed or

delivered in triplicate, to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attn: Rules Docket

(AGC–200), Docket No. 27791, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591. Comments

delivered must be marked Docket No.

27791. Comments may be examined in

Room 915G on weekdays, except

Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and

5:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sheryl Scarborough, Passenger Facility

Charge Branch (App–530), Airports

Financial Assistance Division, Office of

Airports Planning and Programming,

Federal Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202)

267–8825.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

16, 1996, the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) issued Notice No.

96–3, entitled ‘‘Passenger Facility
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 21, 1996 / Proposed Rules 25421

Charges’’ that sought public comment

on changes to several sections of Title

14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part

158 that deal with the collection,

handling, and remittance of PFC’s. The

notice specified the quantity and quality

of airline cost data necessary for the

FAA to determine an adequate rate of

airline compensation. In addition, the

notice included several proposed

modifications to part 158 that would

allow air carriers to be compensated

based on PFC’s collected; would

implement the statutory prohibition

(FAA Authorization Act of 1994) on

collection of PFC’s from passengers

traveling on frequent flyer awards; and

clarified various terms. Finally, the

notice requested comments on several

proposals dealing with ways to

safeguard PFC revenue in the event of

carrier bankruptcy.

By a request dated April 23, 1996,

ATA asked that the comment period be

extended 90 days to allow interested

parties to respond adequately to the

complex issues in the notice. ATA states

that in light of the demands that the cost

data guidance will place upon

responding carriers and the carrier

response rate that the FAA has

established, an extension is needed to

permit the submission of the

information in the detail and to the

extent that the FAA wishes.

The FAA has determined that an

extension of the comment period will

allow ATA and its members additional

time for a more thorough review of

applicable issues and questions raised

by the ANPRM, and the drafting of

responsive comments.

In order, therefore, to give all

interested persons additional time to

complete their comments, the FAA

finds that it is in the public interest to

extend the comment period.

Accordingly, the comment period will

close on August 16, 1996.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 16,

1996.

Paul L. Galis,

Director, Office of Airport Planning and

Programming.

[FR Doc. 96–12739 Filed 5–16–96; 3:32 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 101

[Docket Nos. 91N–384H and 95P–0241]

RIN 0910–AA19

Food Labeling: Nutrient Content

Claims, Definition of Term: Healthy

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) is correcting a proposed rule that

appeared in the Federal Register of

February 12, 1996 (61 FR 5349). The

document proposed to amend the food

labeling regulations to permit certain

processed fruits and vegetables and

enriched cereal-grain products that

conform to a standard of identity to bear

the term ‘‘healthy.’’ The document was

published with an inadvertent error.

This document corrects that error.

DATES: Written comments by July 18,

1996. FDA proposes that any final rule

that may issue based on this proposal

become effective on the date of

publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to

the Dockets Management Branch (HFA–

305), Food and Drug Administration,

12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1–23,

Rockville, MD 20857.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Felicia B. Satchell, Center for Food

Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–

158), Food and Drug Administration,

200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204,

202–205–5099.

In FR Doc. 96–2980, appearing on

page 5349 in the Federal Register of

Monday, February 12, 1996, the

discussion that appears on page 5354 in

the first column under the heading ‘‘V.

Environmental Impact’’ is corrected by

removing the paragraph that appears

there in its entirety and adding in its

place ‘‘The agency has determined

under 21 CFR 25.24(a)(11) that this

action is of a type that does not

individually or cumulatively have a

significant effect on the human

environment. Therefore, neither an

environmental assessment nor an

environmental impact statement is

required.’’

Dated: May 15, 1996.

William K. Hubbard,

Associate Commissioner for Policy

Coordination.

[FR Doc. 96–12689 Filed 5–20–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Parts 202, 206, and 211

RIN 1010–AC02

Amendments to Gas Valuation

Regulations for Federal Leases

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of reopening of public

comment period.

SUMMARY: The Minerals Management

Service (MMS) is reopening the public

comment period under a proposed rule

published in the Federal Register on

November 6, 1995, amending the

regulations governing the valuation for

royalty purposes of natural gas

produced from Federal leases (60 FR

56007). In the December 13, 1995,

Federal Register we extended the

comment period through February 5,

1996 (60 FR 64000). Based on the

diversity of comments received under

the proposed rule, in this notice we are

publishing a summary of those

comments, outlining five options for

proceeding with further rulemaking,

and requesting public comment on the

five options.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before July 22, 1996.

ADDRESSES: You must send comments

to: David S. Guzy, Chief, Rules and

Procedures Staff, Minerals Management

Service, Royalty Management Program,

P.O. Box 25165, MS 3101, Denver,

Colorado 80225–0165, telephone (303)

231–3432, fax (303) 231–3194, e-Mail

Davidl Guzy@smtp.mms.gov, courier

delivery to building 85, Room A–212,

Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO

80225.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David S. Guzy, Chief, Rules and

Procedures Staff, Minerals Management

Service, Royalty Management Program,

telephone (303) 231–3432, fax (303)

231–3194, e-Mail

DavidlGuzy@smtp.mms.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On June 27, 1994, in response to the

Vice President’s National Performance

Review, the Secretary chartered the

Federal Gas Valuation Negotiated

Rulemaking Committee (Committee) for

the purpose of improving the

regulations that govern the valuation,

for royalty purposes, of gas produced

from Federal leases. The Committee was

comprised of representatives from large

oil and gas companies, independents,