33048 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules

hearings on the regulatory and

informational impact of the proposed

amendments on small businesses.

The notice of hearing herein has been

reviewed under Executive Order 12778,

Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended

to have retroactive effect. The notice of

hearing would not preempt any State or

local laws, regulations, or policies,

unless they present an irreconcilable

conflict with this notice to consider an

amendment.

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 requesting 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 in

equity 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.

The Committee submitted the

proposed amendment to remove

California from the winter pear order.

The suggested changes are as follows:

(1) Revise the definition of ‘‘production

area’’ to mean only the States of Oregon

and Washington; (2) revise ‘‘district’’ by

removing California and have only those

districts designated in the States of

Oregon and Washington; (3) revise

‘‘establishment and membership’’ of the

Committee to be consistent with the

reduction in size of the regulated

production area; (4) revise ‘‘procedure

of Control Committee’’, ‘‘(a) quorum and

voting’’, so that the number of members

present for a quorum and voting is

consistent with Committee

representation and amend ‘‘(b) mail

voting’’, to allow for the use of

‘‘telecopiers’’; and (5) revise the

definition of ‘‘pears’’ to exclude pears

produced in California. These proposals

were submitted by the Committee,

which works with the Department in

administering the order. These

proposals have not received the

approval of the Secretary of Agriculture.

The Committee believes that the

proposed changes would improve the

administration, operation, and function

of the winter pear marketing order.

In addition, proposals submitted by

the Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS,

are included to make such changes as

may be necessary to the order to

conform with any amendment thereto

that may result from the hearing.

Public hearings are being held for the

purpose of: (i) receiving evidence about

the economic and marketing conditions

which relate to the proposed

amendments of the order; (ii)

determining whether there is a need for

the proposed amendments to the order;

and (iii) determining whether the

proposed amendments or appropriate

modifications thereof will tend to

effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

All persons wishing to submit written

material as evidence at the hearing

should submit at least four copies of

such material and should be present at

the hearing to present oral testimony

concerning the material.

From the time the notice of hearing is

issued and until the issuance of a final

decision in this proceeding, Department

employees involved in the decisional

process are prohibited from discussing

the merits of the hearing issues on an ex

parte basis with any persons having an

interest in the proceeding. The

prohibition applies to employees in the

following organizational units: Office of

the Secretary of Agriculture; Office of

the Administrator, Agricultural

Marketing Service; Office of the General

Counsel, and the Fruit and Vegetable

Division, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

Procedural matters are not subject to

the above prohibition and may be

discussed at any time.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 927

Marketing agreements, Pears,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

PART 927—WINTER PEARS GROWN

IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 927 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. Testimony is invited on the

following proposed amendments or

appropriate alternatives or

modifications to such amendments.

Proposed amendments submitted by the

Winter Pear Control Committee are as

follows:

Amend §§ 927.4, 927.10, 927.11,

927.20, and 927.33 as follows:

Proposal No. 1

§ 927.4 Pears.

Pears means and includes any and all

of the Beurre D’Anjou, Beurre Bosc,

Winter Nelis, Doyenne du Comice,

Forelle, and Seckel varieties of pears,

and any other winter pear varieties or

subvarieties that are recognized by the

Control Committee and approved by the

Secretary.

Proposal No. 2

§ 927.10 Production area.

Amend § 927.10 by deleting the

comma after the word ‘‘Oregon’’,

placing the word ‘‘and’’ after the word

‘‘Oregon’’, deleting the comma after the

word ‘‘Washington’’, and removing the

words ‘‘and California’’ at the end of the

sentence.

Proposal No. 3

§ 927.11 District.

Amending § 927.11 by removing

paragraph (e).

Proposal No. 4

§ 927.20 Establishment and membership.

Amend § 927.20 by removing the

number ‘‘14’’ in the first sentence and

adding in its place the number ‘‘12’’;

and by removing the word ‘‘seven’’ and

adding in its place the word ‘‘six’’ at the

beginning of the sentence and before the

word ‘‘members’’ in the third sentence.

Proposal No. 5

§ 927.33 Procedure of Control Committee.

Amend § 927.33 paragraph (a) by

removing the word ‘‘ten’’ in the first

sentence and adding in its place the

word ‘‘nine’’; and amending paragraph

(b) by adding the word ‘‘telecopier’’ and

a comma after the word ‘‘mail’’ in the

first sentence.

The Fruit and Vegetable Division,

AMS, submitted the following proposal:

Proposal No. 6

Make such changes as may be

necessary to the order to conform with

any amendment thereto that may result

from the hearing.

Dated: June 24, 1996.

Michael V. Dunn,

Assistant Secretary, Marketing and

Regulatory Programs.

[FR Doc. 96–16430 Filed 6–24–96; 12:40 pm]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules 33049

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–23–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 737–300, –400, and –500 Series

Airplanes

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

certain Boeing Model 737–300, –400,

and –500 series airplanes. This proposal

would require inspections to detect bent

or damaged tie links and washers of the

elevator feel and centering unit, and

replacement of the centering unit with

a new or serviceable unit, if necessary.

This action also would provide an

optional replacement of the centering

unit, which, if accomplished with the

installation of supports and a stop bolt,

would constitute terminating action for

the repetitive inspections. This proposal

is prompted by a report of high control

column forces that occurred during

takeoff and landing. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent such high forces,

which could result in restriction of

elevator control during takeoff,

climbout, and landing.

DATES: Comments must be received by

August 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–

23–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington

98124–2207. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kristin Larson, Aerospace Engineer,

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–

130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification

Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; telephone (206) 227–1760;

fax (206) 227–1181.

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 shall

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

summarizing 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 Number 96–NM–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, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

96–NM–23–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The FAA has received a report of high

control column forces during takeoff

and landing of a Model 737 series

airplane. Investigation revealed that the

high forces were caused by bent tie links

in the elevator centering unit. Further

investigation indicated that, when

hydraulic pressure is removed from the

elevator feel actuator, the actuator

extends to its full length. If the control

column is then pulled back to the aft

stop and then pushed forward with

sufficient force, the tie links in the

centering unit can become bent. Bent tie

links can cause the elevator control

forces to be higher than normal. This

will be noticeable when larger elevator

inputs are necessary, such as during

takeoff and landing. This condition, if

not corrected, could result in restriction

of elevator control during takeoff,

climbout, and landing.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–

27A1194, dated February 1, 1996, which

describes procedures for repetitive

visual inspections for bent or damaged

tie links of the elevator feel and

centering unit, and replacement of the

centering unit with a new or serviceable

unit, if necessary. The alert service

bulletin also describes procedures for

installation of supports and a stop-bolt

on the elevator centering unit. Such

installation eliminates the need for

repetitive inspections for airplanes on

which no damaged tie links or washers

are found. The alert service bulletin also

indicates that replacement of the

elevator centering unit with a new unit,

or one on which serviceable tie links,

supports, and a stop-bolt are installed,

would eliminate the need for the

repetitive inspections.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

require repetitive visual inspections to

detect bent or damaged tie links of the

elevator centering unit, and replacement

of the elevator centering unit with a new

or serviceable unit, if necessary.

Replacement of the elevator centering

unit with a new or serviceable unit on

which serviceable tie links, supports,

and a stop-bolt are installed constitutes

terminating action for the repetitive

inspections. The actions would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with the alert service

bulletin described previously.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 1,618 Boeing

Model 737–300, –400, and –500 series

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

684 airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD, that it

would take approximately 3 work hours

per airplane to accomplish the proposed

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost approximately $140 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $218,880, or

$320 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of
33050 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Proposed Rules

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted.

Should an operator elect to replace

the elevator centering unit rather than

continue the repetitive inspections, it

would take approximately 10 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

replacement, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost approximately $640 per

airplane. Based on these figures, the cost

impact of the replacement is estimated

to be $1,240 per airplane.

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 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

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Boeing: Docket 96–NM–23–AD.

Applicability: Model 737–300, –400 and

–500 series airplanes through line position

2764 inclusive; certificated in any category.

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 (f) 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, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent restriction of elevator control

during takeoff, climbout, and landing, due to

higher than normal elevator control forces

caused by damaged tie links in the elevator

centering unit, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 6 months after the effective date

of this AD: Perform a visual inspection to

detect any bent or damaged tie links of the

elevator feel and centering unit, in

accordance with Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 737–27A1194, dated February 1,

1996.

(b) If no tie link is found to be broken, bent,

or damaged during the inspection required

by paragraph (a) of this AD: Accomplish

either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD, in

accordance with Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 737–27A1194, dated February 1,

1996:

(1) Prior to further flight, install supports

and a stop-bolt on the elevator centering unit.

Once this installation is accomplished, no

further action is required by this AD. Or

(2) Repeat the inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight cycles.

Installation of supports and a stop-bolt in

accordance with the alert service bulletin,

constitutes terminating action for the

repetitive inspections required by this AD,

provided that no damage is detected during

any inspection required by paragraph (a) of

this AD.

(c) If any tie link is found to be bent or

damaged during the inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD, and damage is

within the limits specified in Figure 1 of

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–27A1194,

dated February 1, 1996: Accomplish

paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD in

accordance with the alert service bulletin:

(1) Repeat the inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD thereafter at

intervals not to exceed those specified in

Figure 1 of the alert service bulletin. And

(2) Within 6 months after the effective date

of this AD, install supports and a stop-bolt

on the elevator centering unit. This

installation does not terminate the repetitive

inspection requirements of this paragraph.

(d) If any tie link is found to be bent or

damaged during any inspection required by

this AD, and the damage is beyond the limits

specified in Figure 1 of Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 737–27A1194, dated February 1,

1996: Prior to further flight, replace the

elevator centering unit with a new or

serviceable unit and accomplish either

paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this AD in

accordance with the alert service bulletin:

(1) Install supports and a stop-bolt on the

elevator centering unit; or

(2) Repeat the inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD thereafter at

intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight cycles

until the installation specified in paragraph

(d)(1) of this AD is accomplished.

(e) Replacement of the elevator centering

unit with a unit in which the tie links have

been inspected and determined to be

acceptable and in which supports and a stopbolt have been installed, in accordance with

Boeing Service Bulletin 737–27A1194, dated

February 1, 1996, constitutes terminating

action for the requirements of this AD.

(f) 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, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport 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, Seattle ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(g) 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 June 19,

1996.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–16244 Filed 6–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–226–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 747 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Boeing Model 747 and 767 series