Emergency Procedures for the CESSNA P337G

See Presidential Documents; Science and Technology Policy Office Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airvorthiness directives: British Aerospace, 41076 Collins, 41078 Consolidated Aeronautics Inc., 41079 Great Lakes, 41077 PROPOSED RULES Airports, National Capital: Carriage of weapons and other dangerous objects, 41290 Airworthiness directives: British Aerospace, 41110 Cessna, 41112 Champion Aircraft Co., Inc., 41113 Restricted areas, 41114, 41116 (2 documents) IV Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1986 / Contents NOTICES Technical standard orders: Cargo compartment fire detection instruments, 41200 Federal Communications Commission RULES Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Chief Engineer, 41105 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 41202 Federal Election Commission PROPOSED RULES Presidential primary and general election candidates; public financing, 41110 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 41202 Federal Emergency Management Agency PROPOSED RULES Disaster assistance: Declaration process and State commitments, etc., 41132 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Natural Gas Policy Act: Btu measurement adjustments; refunds, 41080 NOTICES Electric rate and corporate regulation filings: Wisconsin Public Service Corp. et al., 41144 Natural Gas Policy Act: Pipeline decontrol; waivers, rehearings, clarifications, etc., 41146-41148 (3 documents) Small power production and cogeneration facilities; qualifying status: Eli Lilly Industries, Inc., 41148 Willis & Paul Group, 41149 Applications, hearings, determinations,etc.: Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 41149 Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, 41149 Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 41150 Pennsylvania Electric Co., 41150 Upper Peninsula Power Co., 41150 West Texas Utilities Co., 41150 Federal Maritime Commission PROPOSED RULES Maritime carriers and related activities in foreign commerce: Filing of service contracts, etc.; recordkeeping, 41132 NOTICES Agreements filed, etc., 41152 Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 41202 Federal Reserve System NOTICES Applications, hearings, determinations,etc.: Banc One Corp. et al., 41153 NewCentury Bank Corp., 41153 Pupello, Frank, et al., 41153 Sovran Financial Corp. et al., 41154 Food and Drug Administration RULES Animal drugs, feeds, and related products: Morantel tartrate cartridge, 41081 Forest Service RULES Land uses; technical amendments, 41081 Health and Human Services Department See also Food and Drug Administration; Health Care Financing Administration NOTICES Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Civil Rights Office, 41154 Public Affairs Office, 41157 Health Care Financing Administration NOTICES Medicare: Heart transplants; criteria for coverage Correction, 41159 Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Reservation establishment, additions, etc.: Cow Creek Bend of Umpqua Tribe Reservation, OR, 41159 Interior Department See also Indian Affairs Bureau; Land Management Bureau; Minerals Management Service; National Park Service PROPOSED RULES Superfund and Clean Water Act: Natural resource damage assessments, 41131 International Development Cooperation Agency See Agency for International Development International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping: Barium chloride from China, 41141 Light-walled rectangular pipes and tubes from Singapore, 41142 Applications,hearings,determinations, etc.: Brookhaven National Laboratory, 41138 Cornell University, 41139 Good Samaritan Hospital and Medical Center, 41139 Iowa State University of Science and Technology , 41139 Roswell Park Memorial Institute, 41140 University of California, 41140 University of Pennsylvania, 41139 University of Washington, 41140 University of Wisconsin-Madison, 41140 International Trade Commission NOTICES Import investigations Welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from- Philipines and Singapore, 41164 Import investigations: Battery-powered smoke detectors, 41164 Forged steel crankshafts from Brazil, 41163 Garment hangers, 41163 Low-nitrosamine trifluralin herbicides, 41165 Xenon lamp dissolver slide projectors and components, 41166 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1986 / Contents V Interstate Commerce Commission NOTICES Motor carriers: Agricultural cooperative transportation filing notices, 41166 Railroad services abandonment: Marinette, Tomahawk & Western Railroad Co., 41166 Justice Department See also Drug Enforcement Administration; Prisons Bureau NOTICES Pollution control; consent judgments: Pima County, AZ, et al., 41167 Labor Department See Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration Land Management Bureau RULES Public land orders: Idaho, 41104 NOTICES Meetings: Eugene District Advisory Council, 41160 Realty actions; sales, leases, etc.: Arizona, 41160 Mine Safety and Health Federal Review Commission See Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Minerals Management Service NOTICES Outer Continental Shelf; development operations coordination: Exxon Co., U.S.A., 41161 Hall-Houston Oil Co., 41162 Huffco Petroleum Corp., 41162 Walter Oil & Gas Corp., 41162 National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Meetings: Aeronautics Advisory Committee, 41170 Space Systems and Technology Advisory Committee, 41169 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Motor vehicle safety standards; exemption petitions, etc.: Panther Motor Car Co. Ltd. et al., 41201 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Meetings: Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 41142 National Park Service NOTICES Meetings: Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site and Preservation District Advisory Commission, 41163 Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities under 0MB review, 41170, 41171 (2 documents) Agreement State radiation control programs, guidelines for NRC review; policy statement, 41172 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Kansas Gas & Electric Co. et al., 41172 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 41203 Applications, hearings, determinations; etc.: Commonwealth Edison Co., 41171 Peace Corps NOTICES Agency information collection activities under OMB review, 41180 Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration RULES Employee benefit plans: Plan assets, definition, 41285 Reporting and disclosure requirements; exemption and alternative method of annual reporting for plans investing in entities with plan assets, 41262 Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities under OMB review, 41180 (2 documents) Postal Rate Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 41203 Postal Service NOTICES Privacy Act: Systems of records, 41181 (2 documents) Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Iran emergency; continuation (Notice of November 10, 1986), 41067 President's Commission on White House Fellowships NOTICES Applications for White House Fellowships; deadline extension, 41183 Prisons Bureau " NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Federal correctional facility; Wayne County, GA, 41169 Public Health Service See Food and Drug Administration Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 41203 Science and Technology Policy Office NOTICES Meetings: White House Science Council, 41183 Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Accounting bulletins, staff: Business combinations; risk sharing in pooling of interests, 41079 VI Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1986 / Contents NOTICES Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al., 41183 Pacific Stock Exchange, Inc., 41191 Applications,hearings,determinations, etc.: CNA Money Market Fund, Inc., 41191 LTV Corp., 41191 PaineWebber Inc. et al., 41193 Resources Growth Fund, Inc., 41195 SAFECO Life Insurance Co. et al., 41196 The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 41192 Universal BIDCO Corp., 41197 Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster loan areas: Idaho, 41198 Meetings; regional advisory councils: Texas, 41199 Washington, 41198 Applications, hearings,determinations,etc.: Brentwood Capital Corp., 41198 Manhattan Central Capital Corp., 41198 Mapleleaf Capital Corp., 41199 Soil Conservation Service NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Lumpkin County, GA, 41134 State Department NOTICES Meetings: Shipping Coordinating Committee, 41199 Textile Agreements Implementation Committee See Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements Transportation Department See also Federal Aviation Administration; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Aviation proceedings: Hearings, etc.- Cascade Airways, Inc., 41200 Midcontinent Airlines, Inc., 41200 United States Information Agency NOTICES Meetings: Public Diplomacy, U.S. Advisory Commission, 41201 White House Fellowships, President's Commission See President's Commission on White House Fellowships Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 41206 Part Ill Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, 41262 Part IV Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 41290 Reader Aids Additional information, including a list of public laws, telephone numbers, and finding aids, appears in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue. Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1986 / Contents VII CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue. 3 CFR Executive Orders: 12170 (See Notice of November 10, 1986) .............................. 41067 Administrative Orders: Notices: November 10, 1986 ......... 41067 7 CFR 906 ..................................... 41069 944 ..................................... 41069 966 ..................................... 41071 9 CFR 91 ...................................... 41075 Proposed Rules: 51 ....................................... 41108 92 ....................................... 41109 11 CFR Proposed Rules: 100..................................... 41110 106..................................... 41110 9001 ................................... 41110 9002 ................................... 41110 9003 ............... 41110 9004..; ................................ 41110 9005 ................................... 41110 9006 ................................... 41110 9007 ................................... 41110 9031 ................................... 41110 9032 ................................... 41110 9033 ................................... 41110 9034 ................................... 41110 9035................................... 41110 9036................................... 41110 9037 ................................... 41110 9038 ................................... 41110 9039 ................................... 41110 14 CFR 39 (4 documents) ........... 41076-- 41079 Proposed Rules: 39 (3 documents) ............ 41110, 41112,41113 73 (2 documents) ............ 41114, 41116 159..................................... 41290 17 CFR 211 ..................................... 41079 Proposed Rules: 1......................................... 41117 33 ....................................... 41117 18 CFR 154 ..................................... 41080 21 CFR 520 ..................................... 41081 29 CFR 2509 ................................... 41262 2510 ................................... 41262 2520 ................................... 41285 2550 ................................... 41262 32 CFR Proposed Rules: 855 ..................................... 41121 33 CFR 320 ..................................... 41206 321 ..................................... 41206 322 ..................................... 41206 323 ................ 41206 324 ..................................... 41206 325 ..................................... 41206 326 ..................................... 41206 327 ..................................... 41206 328 ..................................... 41206 329 ..................................... 41206 330 ..................................... 41206 36 CFR 251 ..................................... 41081 40 CFR 261 (2 documents) .......... 41082, 41100 43 CFR Public Land Orders: 6629................................... 41104 Proposed Rules: 11 ....................................... 41131 44 CFR Proposed Rules: 205 ..................................... 41132 46 CFR Proposed Rules: 580 ..................................... 41132 47 CFR 0......................................... 41105 48 CFR 702 ..................................... 41106 41067 Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 51, No. 219 Thursday, November 13, 1986 Title 3-- Notice of November 10, 1986 The President Continuation of Iran Emergency On November 14, 1979, by Executive Order No. 12170, the President declared a national emergency to deal with the threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the situation in Iran. Notices of the continuation of this national emergency were transmitted by the President to the Congress and the Federal Register on November 12, 1980, November 12, 1981, November 8, 1982, November 4, 1983, November 7, 1984, and November 1, 1985. Because our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal and the process of implementing the January 19, 1981, agreements with Iran is still underway, the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, must continue in effect beyond November 14, 1986. Therefore, in accord- ance with Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency with respect to Iran. This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress. THE WHITE HOUSE, November 10, 1986. [FR Doc. 86-25807 Filed 11-12-86; 10:02 am] Billing code 3195-01-M 41069 Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 51, No. 219 Thursday, November 13, 1986 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents having genera; :4fplicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each week. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Parts 906 and 944 Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in Texas, and Imported Oranges; Revision of Grade, Size, Container, and Container Marking Requirements AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule temporarily: (1) Relaxes the current minimum grade requirements for Texas oranges, Texas grapefruit, and imported oranges; (2) lowers the minimum size requirement for Texas grapefruit; and (3) suspends certain container marking requirements. Such action will permit shipment of oranges and grapefruit which are slightly lower in quality, and grapefruit which are slightly smaller in size-during the 1986-87 season, in recognition of the overall quality of the crop and anticipated market conditions. Also, it will authorize another container which is needed for shipment of Texas oranges and grapefruit. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 1986. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Ronald L. Cioffi, Chief, Marketing Order Administration Branch, F&V, AMS, USDA, Washington, DC 20250, telephone 202-447-5697. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12291 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1 and has been determined to be a "non-major" rule under the criteria contained therein. Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service has determined that this action will not -have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act, and 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. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the RFA, the Administrator of AMS has considered the impact of this rule upon small entities. This action relaxes for the 1986--87 season the grade and size requirements for Texas grapefruit, and the grade requirements for Texas and imported oranges. Likewise, a container marking requirement pertaining to U.S. No. 2 grade Texas oranges and grapefruit would be relaxed. Also, another container would be authorized on a permanent basis for the shipment of Texas oranges and grapefruit. This action will impose no new or additional costs of affected handlers, producers, and importers. It is estimated that 22 handlers of Texas oranges and grapefruit under the marketing order for fresh oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas and 10 importers of oranges will be subject to regulation during the course of the current season which began in early October 1986 and ends on July 31, 1987. The great majority of these handlers, producers, and importers may be classified as small entities. In addition, there are in excess of 3,000 producers in the production area. This revision of the Texas orange and grapefruit requirements is issued under the marketing agreement, as amended, and Order No. 906, as amended (7 CFR Part 906), regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. The agreeement and order are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674). This revision of the Texas orange and grapefruit requirements is based upon the unanimous recommendation of an information submitted by the Texas Valley Citrus Committee, established under the order, and upon other available information. This final rule: (1) Relaxes for Texas oranges and imported oranges, the current minimum grade requirement of U.S. No. 2, to U.S. No. 2 with additional allowances for fruit with thorn scratches, scale, green spots, oil spots, and discoloration; (2) relaxes for Texas grapefruit the current minimum grade requirement of U.S. No. 2, to U.S. No. 2 with additional allowances for thorn scratches, scale, green spots, and shape; and (3) permits the shipment of smaller size grapefruit by lowering, for all grades of Texas grapefruit, the minimum size requirement to pack size 112 with a minimum diameter of 35/16 inches. These changes are in effect through July 31, 1987. Currently, the minimum size requirement for U.S. No. 2 grade Texas grapefruit is pack size 96 with a minimum diameter of 39 /1e inches, while for U.S. No. 1 grade grapefruit the minimum is already pack size 112 with a minimum diameter of 3 5 /16 inches. Section 8e of the Act (7 U.S.C. 608e-1) provides that whenever specified commodities, including oranges and grapefruit, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of that commodity are prohibited unless they meet the same grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements as those in effect for the domestically produced commodity. Since this action would relax the minimum grade requirement for domestically produced oranges, this change would also be applicable to imported oranges during the period that the domestic handling requirements are in effect. This action does not change the import requirements for grapefruit because imported grapefruit is governed by Grapefruit Regulation 6 (7 CFR 944.106). Regulation 6 applies the requirements for Florida grapefruit (7 CFR Part 905) to imported grapefruit. Because the current minimum grade requirements are relaxed in this final rule by permitting additional allowances for scratches and other imperfections, the container marking provision is suspended through July 31, 1987. The suspension is designed to prevent the need for a "qualified U.S. No. 2 grade" stamp and to prevent confusion on the part of packinghouse personnel who stamp the "grade" on the containers. In addition, the rule authorizes the use of a new container by permitting handlers to ship Texas oranges and grapefruit in a 41070 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1986 / Rules and Regulations % fiberboard crib, provided that the crib is used only once for the shipment of citrus fruit. The one-time use requirement is necessary to help control the spread of postharvest diseases commonly found in the marketplace. The dimension, shape, and strength of the container are specified in the regulation and are consistent with the other container requirements currently in effect. The committee has found the % fiberboard crib to be a suitable container based on its use on an experimental basis over several seasons. The relaxed grade, size, and container marking requirements for the 1986-87 season are the same as those in effect during the 1985-86 season. Relaxation of the current minimum grade and size requirements for Texas oranges and grapefruit recognizes the overall quality of the crop and anticipated market conditions and should result in increased fresh market sales and improved returns to growers. The committee reports that while the quality of the 1986-87 Texas orange and grapefruit crop is good, only a small volume of fruit will be available for fresh market shipment. The committee recommended the grade and size relaxations to allow shipment of as much fruit into the fresh market as the 1986-87 crop conditions will allow, while providing consumers with an acceptable product. This continues the industry's efforts to get back into the fresh market since the devastating freeze in 1983. Similar to last year, the committee reports that for the 1986-87 season Texas oranges and grapefruit have abnormal amounts of skin blemishes due to bird pecks, wind and twig scarring, and inadequate spray coverage. The committee believes that a considerable amount of fruit on the trees will not meet current minimum grade and size requirements and that some of this fruit would likely be abandonded unless current requirements are relaxed because of inadequate market outlets for such fruit. This is partly due to the fact that the juice plants are expected to operate for a short period of time this season. Because the 1986-87 Texas orange and grapefruit harvest began in early October, prompt action is required. The 1985-86 season marked the first commercial production of citrus from Texas since the freeze of December 1983. However, only about two percent of a normal (pre-freeze) grapefruit crop was produced and about six percent of a normal orange crop was produced. Texas orange production is estimated by the committee at 1.45 million cartons, 2.4 times greater than the 0.6 million cartons produced in 1985-86. This would represent about 15 percent of pre-freeze orange production levels of about 11-12 million cartons. Competing domestic orange production areas are also expected to have larger crops this season with an 11 percent increase in U.S. orange production predicted. At four million cartons, the 1986-87 grapefruit crop is forecast by the committee to be ten times greater than last year's 0.4 million carton crop. However, if attained, this level of grapefruit production would only be 15 percent of a normal (pre-freeze) crop. Pre-freeze grapefruit production levels were about 25-30 million cartons. Although the Texas grapefruit crop is expected to be ten times larger than last year, it is still only 15 percent of normal (compared to two percent last year). U.S. grapefruit production is only expected to show a five percent increase. The suspension of the container marking requirement and the authorization of another container for shipments will facilitate the packing and shipment of Texas oranges and grapefruit this season. After consideration of the information and recommendation submitted by the committee, and other available information, it is found that amendment of § § 906.340, 906.365, and 944.312 will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act and be in the public interest. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is hereby found that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice and to engage in public procedure with respect to this action and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this action until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) This action relaxes restrictions on the handling of Texas oranges and grapefruit and imported oranges; (2) handlers of Texas oranges and grapefruit are aware of this action which was recommended by the committee at a public meeting, and they will require no additional time to comply with the rule; (3) this rule should become effective as soon as possible because shipment of the 1986--87 season Texas orange and grapefruit crops has already began; and (4) the orange import requirements are mandatory under section 8e of the Act. List of Subjects 7 CFR Part906 Marketing agreement and orders. Oranges, Grapefruit, Texas. 7 CFR Part 944 Food grades on standards, Imports, Oranges. 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Parts 906 and 944 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 1-19, 48 Stat. 31, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 601-674. 2. Section 906.340 is amended by adding a paragraph (a)(lliix), by changing the period to a colon and adding a proviso following the last word in paragraph (a)(3) of such section. PART 906-ORANGES AND GRAPEFRUIT GROWN IN LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY IN TEXAS § 906.340 Container, Pack and Container Marking Regulation. (a)* * * (ix) Octagonal or rectangular % fiberboard crib with dimensions of 46 inches long, 38 inches wide, by 24 inches high: Provided,That the crib has a Mullen or Cady test of at least 1,300 pounds: Providedfurther,That the crib be used only once for the shipment of citrus fruit. (3) * * * : Provided,That such container grade marking requirement is suspended through July 31, 1987. * * * * * 3. Section 906.365 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 906.365 Texas Orange and Grapefruit Regulation 34. (c) Notwithstanding the requirements specified for oranges and grapefruit in paragraphs (a) (1) through (4) of this section, any handler may ship through July 31, 1987: (1) Oranges if such fruit grades at least U.S. No. 2, except very serious damage by thorn scratches, scale, green spots, oil spots, and discoloration shall be permitted, provided such defects are within the acceptance levels specified in § 51.689; (2) Grapefruit if such fruit grades at least U.S. No. 2, except very serious damage by thorn scratches, scale, green spots, and shape shall be permitted, provided such defects are within the acceptance levels specified in § 51.628; and (3) Such grapefruit are at least pack size 112, except that the minimum diameter limit for pack size 112 grapefruit in any lot shall be 35/16 inches. Applicable grade and size requirements are defined in 7 CFR 51.620-51.653, and 51.680-51.714. No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 41071 PART 944-FRUITS; IMPORT REGULATIONS 3. Section 944.312 is amended by adding a new paragraph (g) to such section to read as follows: § 944.312 Orange Import Regulation 13. (g) Notwithstanding the requirements specified for oranges in this section, any person may import oranges through July 31, 1987, if they grade at least U.S. No. 2, except very serious damage by thorn scratches, scale, green spots, oil spots, and discoloration shall be permitted, provided such defects are within the acceptance levels specified in § 51.689. Such grade is defined in 7 CFR 51.680- 51.714. Dated: November 7, 1986. Joseph A. Gribbin, Director,Fruit and Vegetable Division, AgriculturalMarketing Service. [FR Doc. 86-25636 Filed 11-12-86; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-M 7 CFR Part 966 Tomatoes Grown In Florida and Tomatoes Imported Into the United States; Amendment to Regulations AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule increases the minimum size requirement for domestic tomatoes covered under the marketing order for tomatoes grown in Florida, and for all tomatoes offered for importation into the United States from 2%2 inches in diameter to a 2%2 inches in diameter. This change is intended to consistently supply fresh market outlets with tomatoes of acceptable maturity and quality. Smaller size tomatoes generally take longer to ripen than the larger tomatoes. Because of this, they normally do not develop proper flavor. Also, the change would eliminate from fresh shipments smaller size tomatoes which are usually of negligible economic value to producers. The change in the minimum size applicable to domestic tomatoes was recommended by the Florida Tomato Committee, the body which works with the Department in administering the Federal marketing order for Florida tomatoes. The change in minimum size applicable to tomatoes offered for importation is necessary under section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. EFFECTIVE DATE: The change in the minimum size requirement for Florida and imported tomatoes is effective December 1, 1986, through June 15, 1987, for the 1986-87 season. For the 1987-88 season and each season thereafter these regulations are effective October 10 through June 15. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald L. Cioffi, Chief, Marketing Order Administration Branch, F&V, AMS, USDA, Washington, DC 20250, telephone (202) 447-5697. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule has been reviewed under Departmental Regulation 1512-1 and Executive Order 12291 and has been determined to be a "non-major" rule under criteria contained therein. Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of the businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (the Act, 7 U.S.C. 601-674), and rules promulgated thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through the group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility. There are approximately 103 handlers of Florida tomatoes subject to regulation under the Florida tomato marketing order handling regulation. There are approximately 180 growers of tomatoes in the production area. Finally, there are approximately 31 importers of fresh tomatoes subject to the tomato import regulation during the 1986-1987 season. Small agricultural producers have been defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.2) as those having annual gross revenues for the last three years of less than $100,000 and agricultural service firms are defined as those whose gross annual receipts are less than $3,500,000. The majority of handlers, producers, and importers of Florida tomatoes may be classified as small entities. Pursuant to requirements set forth in the RFA, the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The regulatory action in this instance is a final rule increasing the minimum size requirement for tomatoes that will eliminate the 7x7 classification for fresh tomatoes having a minimum diameter of 2%z inches and a maximum diameter of 21%2 inches. The handling regulation is applicable to fresh tomatoes grown in the production area and shipped outside the regulated area during the period October 10 through June 15 each marketing season. Pursuant to section 8e of the Act, when such a regulation is in effect for domestic shipments, imports are required to meet the same requirements. As indicated earlier the change in the minimum size requirement for the domestic and imported tomatoes will be effective December 1, 1986, through June 15, 1987, for the 1986-87 season. Each season thereafter these regulations will be effective October 10 through June 15. the final rule is the same as the proposed rule except that the effective date for the 1986-87 season has been changed to December 1, 1986. The 1985-86 annual report of the Florida Tomato Committee provides data on shipments 7x7 classification tomatoes during the October 10, 1985, through June 15, 1986, shipping season for fresh tomatoes grown in the Florida production area and shipped outside the regulated area. The statistics divide tomatoes into two categories, mature green and vine-ripe. For mature green tomatoes in the 7x7 classification, there were 3,132,880 containers of 25-pound equivalents or 6.69 percent of the total mature green shipments of 46,834,876 containers for all sizes. With an average price of $4.07 a container, the 7x7 mature green tomatoes were valued at $12,739,586 or about 3.5 percent of the total sales dollars of $364,055,331 for all sizes of mature green tomatoes. Vine ripe tomatoes in the 7x7 classification totaled 131,716 containers in 20-pound equivalents or 1.89 percent of the total of 6,983,646 containers for all sizes. At an average price of $3.00, the 7x7 vine-ripe tomatoes were valued at more than $395,000 or about one percent of the total sales dollars of $44,046,160 for vine-ripe tomatoes of all sizes. Therefore, the total sales dollar volume of all 7x7 classification tomatoes shipped last season represented about 3.2 percent of the total dollar volume of all sizes of tomatoes shipped. While this regulation will not permit shipment of 7x7 classification tomatoes outside of the regulated area, exemptions to the handling regulation will continue to be available. For example, several varieties or types of tomatoes are completely exempt and handlers may ship up to 60 pounds of tomatoes per day without regard to the requirements of the handling regulation. The handling regulation does not prevent the handling of tomatoes within the regulated area and the regulation Federal Register / Vol. 51, 41072 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1986 / Rules and Regulations permits shipments of tomatoes for canning, experimental purposes, relief, charity, or export. Importers could also ship up to 60 pounds of tomatoes per day exempt from the import regulation. It is the Department's view that under this regulation the impact of the regulation upon the growers, handlers, and importers will not be adverse. Any additional costs to handlers, growers, and importers in implementing this rule will be significantly offset when compared to the potential benefits of the rule. Marketing Order No. 966 regulates the handling of tomatoes grown in Florida. The program is effective under the Act. The Florida Tomato Committee, established under the order, is responsible for its local administration. The Florida Tomato Committee met September 5, 1986, and recommended that the current minimum size requirement of 2%2 inches in diameter for tomatoes grown in the production area be increased to 2%2 inches in diameter. The effect of this change would be the elimination of the 7x7 size classification for tomatoes with a minimum diameter of 2%2 inches and a maximum diameter of 2'%2 inches. The committee recommended that the change be effective at the start of the 1986-87 season. Other handling requirements under M.O. 966, including the minimum requirement that tomatoes be at least U.S. No. 3 grade remain unchanged. According to the committee, the increase in the minimum size requirement is necessary to prevent tomatoes of lower quality and maturity and undesirable size from being distributed in fresh market channels. It also stated that such tomatoes are usually of negligible economic value to producers. The committee believes this action would provide consumers with tomatoes of good quality and size throughout the season consistent with the overall quality of the crop and improve economic returns to growers. Section 8e of the Act (7 U.S.C. 608e-1) provides that whenever specified commodities, including tomatoes, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of that commodity are prohibited unless they meet the same grade, size quality, or maturity requirements as those in effect for the domestically produced commodity. Since this rule will increase the minimum size requirement for domestically produced tomatoes, this change will also be applicable to imported tomatoes during the period that the domestic handling requirements are in effect. Conforming changes to § 966 323(d)(3) For specialpacked tomatoes and § 966.323(f) Applicability to imports will be made to reflect the increase in the minimum size requirement. No change is needed in the import regulation for tomatoes which appears in Part 980 (7 CFR 980.212; 42 FR 55192; October 4, 1977). Notice of this change for Florida tomatoes and imported tomatoes was contained in a proposed rule published in the Federal Register on October 3, 1986 (51 FR 35358). A total of 57 comments were filed. The committee filed a comment supporting its recommendation. Other comments from Florida growers and handlers and consumers supported the committee's efforts to improve the quality of tomatoes entering fresh market channels. Comments from repackers primarily from the northeastern part of the United States objected to the change as did several retail stores, packaging and cellophane manufacturers, and some consumers. Comments supporting the proposed increase in the minimum size requirements contend that it is necessary in order to prevent tomatoes of lower quality and maturity from being distributed in fresh market channels, and that this action would improve the overall quality of tomato shipments and improve economic returns to growers. These commentors further contend that tomatoes smaller than 2%2 inches in diameter generally are immature fruit thai takes longer than normal to ripen and does not develop full flavor. A detailed discussion of these contentions is included later in this final rule. Those opposing the increased minimum size to 2%2 inches indicated that eliminating the 7x7 size classification would cause unemployment, lost tax revenues, and wasted inventories of wrapping materials and containers dedicated to the 7x7 size tomato. Also, the commentors contend that removal of the smaller sized 7x7 tomatoes will decrease the supply of existing tomatoes and thus increase the price for all tomatoes. Several comments indicated that 7x7 size tomatoes were more affordable for lower income families than larger size tomatoes. One comment was received from a senior citizen living on a fixed income indicating that 7x7 tomtoes are satisfactory. Another comment was received representing the views of forty-two low-income families. The comment indicated that they purchased the smaller size tomatoes because the price fit their budget and that they found nothing wrong with the taste or quality of smaller tomatoes. Several comments from food chain stores indicated that the 7x7 size tomato was one of their best sellers with lower and fixed income groups and that the quality and taste did not appear to be a problem. Several comments were received from repackers of Florida and imported tomatoes disputing the tomato committee's claim that small 7x7 tomatoes are of lower quality and maturity and undesirable to consumers, and thus should be eliminted from the marketplace. These repackers contend that consumers prefer buying several smaller size tomatoes rather than one or two large tomatoes at the same price. Also, they indicated taste studies show that smaller tomatoes actually taste better than the larger, over-sized tomatoes. However, the name of the study and its author or authors were not indicated and, hence, the contentions are not verifiable. A telephone comment and a written comment were received from two Florida handlers under the marketing order. They objected to the elimination of 7x7 tomatoes on the basis that the proposal did not represent the views of the regulated industry and its members. However, this assertion is belied by the fact that the recommendation is a unanimous recommendation of the Florida Tomato Committee. In its comment, the committee has indicated that there were more than 120 people present at the time of the September 5, 1986, committee meeting who represented more than 90 percent of the volume of tomatoes produced in the production area as defined in § 966.4. In accordance with the declared policy of the Act, one of the Department's principal objectives is to establish a current level of prices to growers up to parity at a rate the Department deems to be in the public interest and feasible in view of the. current demand in domestic and foreign markets. The 1986-87 season aveage f.o.b. shipping point price for Florida tomatoes is not expected to exceed the parity equivalent price. The Florida Tomato Committee expects that fresh tomato shipments from Florida during the 1986-87 season will be slightly less than the 1985-86 total with about 47 million 25-pound equivalent containers of tomatoes. In addition, preliminary reports from the U.S. Agricultural Attache in Mexico indicate that fresh tomato exports to the U.S. during the 1987 winter and spring will be at least slightly larger than in the 1986 season. Imports of fresh tomatoes from Caribbean countries also may increase compared with 1985-86. In the 1985-86 season, Florida tomato prices averaged $29.20 per 41072 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1986 / Rules and Regulations No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 41073 hundredweight. This compares with $18.40 per hundredweight in the previous season and a 1979-80 through 1983-84 average of $24.15 per hundredweight. The 1985-86 season average price is 69 percent of the Florida parity equivalent price compared with an average of 60 percent in the five previous seasons. In support of the committee's contention concerning the negligible economic value of tomatoes smaller than 2%2 inches in diameter and the maturity and quality of such tomatoes, the committee submitted the following information on returns to growers and the maturity of these tomatoes in its comment. The committee indicated that total shipments of 7x7 tomatoes during the 1985-86 season were 3,132,880, 25-pound equivalent packages of mature greens at an average price of $4.07, and 131,716, 20-pound equivalent packages of vine- ripes at an average price of $3.00. The committee also indicated that during 18 weeks of the 36-week 1985-86 season that theaverage price received for 7x7 tomatoes was less than the average harvesting and marketing costs of $3.14 per 25-pound unit. It further indicated that in only one week of the 1985-86 season was the average price for 7x7 tomatoes higher than the average total costs of $6.08 per 25-pound equivalent for producing and marketing such tomatoes. These total costs include production, harvesting, and marketing costs. In 1984-85, a total of 2,264,904 packages of 7x7 mature greens were shipped at an average price of $4.80, and 104,181 packages of vine-ripes were shipped at an average price of $3.77. The committee indicated that during 22 weeks of the 35-week 1984-85 season that the average price for mature green 7x7 tomatoes was less than the average harvesting and marketing costs of $3.14 per 25-pound unit. The committee further indicated that in only nine weeks of the 35-week 1984-85 season was the average price for 7x7 tomatoes higher than the average total costs of $6.08, for producing, harvesting, and marketing such 7x7 tomatoes. The committee indicated that the higher prices were a direct result of freezing temperatures that greatly reduced supplies that season. This information shows that grower returns for 7x7 tomatoes are limited except during times of extremely low supply. Obviously, this is an important concern to the Florida tomato industry. Size is generally the most important consideration in pricing at shipping point and wholesale. For a given grade, the largest tomatoes sell at the highest price. Large U.S. No. 2 grade tomatoes normally are priced above small U.S. No. I tomatoes. The price spread between sizes is largest during periods of normal or light supplies but narrows appreciably when supplies are heavy. The October 7, 1986, compilation of Florida weekly tomato acreage planted for harvest for the 1986-87 season published by the Florida Agricultural Statistics Service shows that 5,258 more acres were planted this season over the past season. The additional acreage is expected to result in an oversupply of tomatoes. Although total output will be highly dependent on the weather, the committee believes that the 1986-87 crop will total about 47 million 25-pound equivalents. Last year's crop totalled about 52 million 25-pound equivalents. The committee's initial estimate of that crop was 49 million 25-pound equivalents. As indicated earlier, the Department has information which projects that tomato imports from Mexico and Caribbean countries will be slightly greater for the 1986-87 season than last year. Increased imports to the United States would further increase the supply of tomatoes. With ample supplies of tomatoes from domestic and foreign sources, any price increases resulting from this action are expected to be minimal. While the repackers and other interested parties contend that small size tomatoes are mature, taste better and are preferred by their customers, the committee has submitted information which contradicts these contentions. The information submitted shows that small 7x7 tomatoes generally take longer to ripen after harvest than larger tomatoes and because of that are less flavorful and undesirable to the consumer. Growers attempt to pick these 7x7 tomatoes generally when they have reached mature green. Subsequently, they are gassed in handling facilities to hasten the coloring and ripening process. Then they are packed and shipped to fresh market channels. Mature green means that the surface of the tomato is completely green in color. The shade of green color may vary from light to dark. Currently tomato pickers, working on a per bucket basis, must try to size tomatoes that are 2%2 inches in diameter and larger as quickly as possible. This rapid procedure of picking tomatoes sometimes includes smaller, immature tomatoes. However, a recent study conducted on ripening mature green tomatoes by Dr. Jeffrey K. Brecht, Assistant Professor, Vegetable Crops Department, WAS, University of Florida, indicates that the 7x7 size class of tomatoes tends to be too immature on an average and thus of very low quality. Fully mature green tomatoes according to the study, will begin coloring within a few days of harvesting and ripen at 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Since there are no easily identified surface indicators of full maturity in green fruit, pickers are forced to rely on size rather than maturity when harvesting tomatoes. The result of this with regard to the small 7x7 size class is immature tomatoes which may require two weeks or more to begin ripening. Attainment of the full ripe stage requires on the average a week to 10 days additional time. Hence, the full ripening process could take as along as four weeks. According to the study, tomatoes held this long after harvest have extremely poor taste quality. The researcher indicates that elimination of the 7x7 class would be of benefit to the industry and the consumer. The researcher also reported the results of an experiment designed to show the effect of ethylene treatment on the internal development of immature tomatoes. The fruit used were 7x7 tomatoes obtained from a commercial packinghouse. About 60 percent of the fruit from the lot used were completely immature. The rest were almost all just partially immature. At the end of 16 days, the controlled fruit was still substantially shy of the breaker stage. A breaker is a tomato in the first stage of changing color; it is primarily green with a little yellow or pink coloring at the blossom end. The researcher concluded that continuous ethylene treatment had a substantial effect on the rate of development on the small tomatoes. But in his opinion, the fruit was basically tasteless. This study strongly supports the industry's quality observation on small size 7x7 tomatoes. That is, that small size 7x7 tomatoes are generally immature and do not reach a level of maturity that provides the consumer with a good product. The tendency for 7x7 tomatoes to be immature and of lower quality appears to be an important factor in the low market price for such tomatoes. Quality assurance is very important to the Florida tomato industry in light of their decision to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on promotion and education programs to increase per capita consumption and teach consumers how to properly ripen tomatoes. It is the committee's opinion that it would not be in the best interest of Florida tomato growers and handlers for the committee to spend great sums of Federal Register / Vol. 51, 41074 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1986 / Rules and Regulations money for promotion and education purposes and continue to sell a product which is not preferred by consumers, especially when more than ample supplies of tomatoes are available to meet market needs. The committee contends that its recommendation to raise the minimum size requirement from 2%2 inches in diameter to 2%2 inches in diameter will provide fresh market outlets and consumers with a better quality product. A product that is more desirable and appealing to the consumer, and which will provide greater economic returns to tomato producers. Another comment states that the proposal to eliminate the shipment of size 7x7 tomatoes is contrary to the Secretary's Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders, published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on January 25, 1982. While quality control provisions may impact supplies, this impact is secondary to their primary purpose of providing the public with acceptable quality merchandise from season to season recognizing changing crop conditions and buyer preferences. This primary consideration has been adequately justified by the evidence submitted by the committee. Several commentors indicated that they have substantial sums of money invested in packaging machinery and raw material for repacking 7x7 tomatoes. One firm indicated that the elimination of the 7x7 size category could cost his firm close to $750,000. Another firm indicated that it has over $25,000 in packaging supplies, including printed film and trays which cannot be used for tomatoes larger than the size to be eliminated. Another firm indicated that the dollar value of its tray inventory for 7x7 tomatoes was $44,000. In recognition of the possible financial losses on packaging material inventories, the Department has given consideration to delaying the effective date of the size changes. The Department recognizes that the Florida tomato industry is anxious to improve the quality and maturity of tomatoes shipped into fresh channels. However, the Department believes that repackers and packaging manufacturers should have time to dispose of some of their packing material and lessen their financial losses, if any, on this material. To give these firms the opportunity to obtain 7x7 tomatoes from Florida, other tomato producing States, and foreign sources, the effective date of this action is being delayed until December 1, 1986. Each comment was carefully considered in reaching the final decision on this action. On the basis of the comments received, and other available information, it has been determined that the minimum size requirement for Florida tomatoes and tomato imports will be 2%2 inches in diameter effective December 1, 1986. The specified requirements for both Florida and imported tomatoes will continue in effect from marketing season to marketing season indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by the Secretary upon recommendation and information submitted by the committee or other information available to the Secretary. Although the seasonal regulations will be effective for an indefinite period, the committee will continue to meet prior to and during each season to consider recommendations for modification, suspension, or termination of the regulation. Prior to making any such recommendations the committee would submit to the Secretary a marketing policy for the season including an analysis of supply and demand factors having a bearing on the marketing of the Florida tomato crop. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. The Department will evaluate committee recommendations and information submitted by the committee, and other available information, and determine whether modification, suspension, or termination of the regulations on shipments of Florida and imported tomatoes would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. After consideration of all relevant information, including the proposal set forth in the notice and comments filed with respect thereto, it is hereby found that the following changes in the domestic and imported tomato requirements, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. It is hereby further found that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this action until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register (5 U.S.C. 553) for the following reasons: (1) Shipments of the 1986 tomato crop grown domestically have begun; (2) to maximize benefits to handlers, producers, and consumers, this regulation should apply to as many shipments as possible during the marketing season; (3) to assure the quality of imported tomatoes, the tomato import regulations should apply effective December 1, 1986. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 966 Marketing agreements and orders, Tomatoes, Florida, Import regulations. PART 966-TOMATOES GROWN IN FLORIDA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 966 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 1-19, 48 Stat. 31, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 601-674. 2. Section 966.323 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (d)(3), and (f) to read as follows: § 966.323 Handling regulation. During the period December 1, 1986, through June 15, 1987, during the 1986-87 season, and during the period October 10 through June 15 each season thereafter, no person shall handle any lot of tomatoes for shipment outside the regulated area unless they meet the requirements of paragraph (a) or are exempted by paragraphs (b) or (d). (a) * * * (2) Size. (i) Tomatoes shall be at least 2%2 inches in diameter and be sized with proper equipment in one or more of the following ranges of diameters. Measurements of diameters shall be in accordance with the methods prescribed in paragraph 51.1859 of the U.S. Standards for Grades of Fresh Tomatoes. 1nches Size dassification Minimum Maximum diameter diameter 6x7 .................................................. 2% 2 2 % 2 6 6 ................................................... 2'%. 22% 2 5x6 and larger ..... 2%:....................... (d) * * * (3) Forspecialpacked tomatoes. Tomatoes which met the inspection rquirements of paragraph (a)(4) which are resorted, regraded, and repacked by a handler who has been designated as a "Certified Tomato Repacker" by the committee are exempt from (i) the tomato grade classifications of paragraph (a)(1), (ii) the size classifications of paragraph (a)(2) except that the tomatoes shall be at least 2%2 inches in diameter, and (iii) the container weight requirements of paragraph (a)(3). * * * * * (f) Applicability to imports.Under section 8e of the Act and § 980.212 "Import regulations" (7 CFR 980.212) tomatoes inspected during the period December 1, 1986, through June 15, 1987, during the 1986-87 season and October 10 through June 15 each season thereafter shall be at least U.S. No. 3 grade and at least 2%2 inches in diameter. Not more than 10 percent, by Federal Register I Vol. 51, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 41075 count, in any lot may be smaller than the minimum specified diameter. Dated: November 7, 1986. Joseph A. Gribbin, Director,Fruitand Vegetable Division, AgriculturalMarketingService. [FR Doc. 86-25637 Filed 11-12-86; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-M Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 91 [Docket No. 86-090] Ports Designated for Exportation of Animals; Deletion of Indianapolis International Airport AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Interim rule. SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations on "Inspection and Handling of Livestock for Exportation" by deleting Indianapolis International Airport from the list of ports of embarkation. We are taking this action because Indianapolis International Airport no longer has export inspection facilities. DATES: Interim rule effective; November 13, 1986; comments must be received on or before January 12, 1987. ADDRESSES: Submit comments to Steven R. Poore, Acting Assistant Director, Regulatory Coordination, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 728, Federal Building, 6505 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782. Please state that they refer to Docket Number 86-090. Written responses may be inspected at Room 728 of the Federal Building between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Harvey A. Kryder, Jr., Senior Staff Velerinarian, Import-Export and Emergency Planning Staff, Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 806, Federal Building, 6505 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782; (301) 436-8695. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 9 CFR Part 91, "Inspection and Handling of Livestock for Exportation" (referred to below as the regulations), prescribe conditions for exporting animals from the United States. Section:91.14 of the regulations lists ports of embarkation. Only ports satisfying specific requirements can be designated as ports of embarkation. A port must, among other things, have an inspection facility available for animals intended for export. Private parties or State departments of agriculture own and operate these export inspection facilities. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service provides export inspection services at the request of the operator of an inspection facility. The decision to establish, operate, or close an animal export inspection facility rests with the operator alone, and may change at any time. We are removing Indianapolis International Airport from the list of ports of embarkation in § 91.14(a) of the regulations because the export inspection facility has been closed by the operator. Emergency Action Dr. John K. Atwell, Deputy Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for Veterinary Services, has determined that an emergency situation exists which warrants publication of this interim rule without prior opportunity for public comment. It is necessary to make this interim rule effective immediately, to notify animal exporters that this port of embarkation is no longer available. Therefore, pursuant to the administrative procedure provisions in 5 U.S.C. 533, it is found upon good cause that prior notice and other, public procedures With respect to this interim rule are impracticable and contrary to the public interest, and good cause is found for making this interim rule effective upon publication. Comments are solicited for 60 days after publication of this document. A final document discussing comments received and any amendments required will be published in the Federal Register. Executive Order 12291 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule is issued in conformance with Executive Order 12291 and has been determined to be not a "major rule." Based on information compiled by the Department, we have determined that this rule will not have a significant effect on the economy; will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and will not have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign- based enterprises in domestic or export markets. It .is anticipated that the closing of the animal export inspection facility at Indianapolis International Airport will affect only one business concern. Approved embarkation ports are available in nearby Chicago, Illinois, and Cincinnati, Ohio, so that there should be no significant economic impact on this entity. Under the circumstances explained above, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review process required by Executive Order 12291. Paperwork Reduction Act 'This interim rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Executive Order 12372 This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V). List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 91 Animal diseases, Animal welfare, Exports, Livestock and livestock products, Transportation. PART 91-INSPECTION AND HANDLING OF LIVESTOCK FOR EXPORTATION Accordingly, 9 CFR Part 91 is amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for Part 91 continues to read as set forth below: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 105,112, 113, 114a, 120, 121, 134b, 134f, 612, 613,614, 618, 46 U.S.C. 466a, 466b; 49 U.S.C. 1509(d); 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d). 2. In § 91.14, paragraph (a)(5) is removed and paragraphs (a)(6) through (a)(16) are redesignated as paragraphs (a)(5] through (a)(15). Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of November. B.G. Johnson, Deputy Administrator,Veterinary Services. [FR Doc. 86-25635 Filed 11-12-86; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-M No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 41075 Federal Register / Vol. 51, 41-375 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1986 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. 86-CE-57-AD; Amendment 39- 5464] Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace Model B.121 Series I, II, and III Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new Airworthiness Directive (AD), applicable to all British Aerospace (BAe) Model B.121 Series I, II, and III airplanes which requires initial and repetitive visual inspections for cracks in the structure that attaches the vertical fin to the fuselage. BAe has received reports of cracks being found in these areas. Inspection in the area where the vertical fin attaches to the fuselage will detect these cracks before structural failures occur, and preclude subsequent loss of airplane control. DATES: Effective December 18, 1986. Compliance: As prescribed in the body of this AD. ADDRESSES: British Aerospace Service Bulletin (S/B) No. B121/86, dated March 29, 1984, applicable to this AD may be obtained from British Aerospace, Engineering Department, Post Office Box 17414, Dulles International Airport, Washington, DC 20041; Telephone (703) 435-9100. A copy of this information is also contained in the Rules Docket, FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Room 1558, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Mr. T. Ebina, Brussels Aircraft Certification Staff, AEU-100, Europe, Africa and Middle East Office, FAA, c/o American Embassy, 1000 Brussels, Belgium; Telephone 513.38.30; or Mr. John P. Dow, Sr., FAA, ACE-109, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; Telephone (816) 374-6932. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend Part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations to include an AD requiring initial and repetitive visual inspections for cracks in the structure that attaches the vertical fin to the fuselage, and repair as necessary on all BAe Model B.121 Series 1, 11, and III airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on August 14, 1986, 51 FR 29110. The proposal resulted from BAe receiving a report of cracks being found on a Model B.121 Series airplane (a) on the center angle attaching the upper Rear Fuselage sloping diaphragm to STN 207.85 Frame Assembly, (b) on the upper decking diaphragm attached between the same frame assembly and STN 218.5 Frame Assembly, and (c] in the heel of the side skin attachment flange on Frame 207.85 adjacent to the tailplane front spar attachment bolts. Consequently, British Aerospace issued BAe S/B No. B121/86, dated March 29, 1984, which: (1) Specified an initial visual inspection of the vertical fin/ fuselage structure within 50 hours time- in-service (TIS) for airplanes having 2,450 hours or more TIS, (2) specified repetitive visual inspection at intervals of 50 hours TIS thereafter, and (3) requires a repair procedure if cracks beyond specific limits are found. The Civil Aviation Authority-United Kingdom (CAA-UK), which has responsibility and authority to maintain the continuing airworthiness of these airplanes in the United Kingdom, classified this service bulletin and the actions recommended therein by the manufacturer as mandatory to assure the continued airworthiness of the affected airplanes. On airplanes operated under United Kingdom registration, this action has the same effect as an AD on airplanes certificated for operation in the United States. The FAA relies upon the certification of the CAA-UK, combined with FAA review of pertinent documentation in finding compliance of the design of these airplanes with the applicable United States airworthiness requirements and the airworthiness and conformity of products of this design certificated for operation in the United States. The FAA examined the available information related to the issuance of BAe S/B No. B121/86, dated March 29, 1984, and the mandatory classification of this service bulletin by the CAA-UK, and concluded that the condition addressed by BAe S/B No. B121/86, dated March 29, 1984, was an unsafe condition that may exist on other airplanes of this type certificated for operation in the United States. Accordingly, the FAA proposed an amendment to Part 39 of the FAR to include an AD on this subject. Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to comment on the proposal. No comments were received. Accordingly, the proposal is adopted without change. The FAA has determined that this regulation involves two airplanes at an approximate annual cost of $105 for each airplane, or a total annual fleet cost of $210. The FAA has determined that this document: (1) Involves a regulation that is not a major rule under the provisions of Executive Order 12291, (2) is not a significant rule under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979), and (3) certifies under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, I certify that this action: (1) Is not a "major rule" under Executive Order 12291; (2) is not a "significant rule" under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 2, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact an a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the regulatory 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, Aviation safety, Aircraft, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment PART 39--AMENDED] Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends § 39.13 and Part 39 of the FAR as follows: 1. The authority citation for Part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421 and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g) (Revised, Pub. L. 97-449, January 12,1983); and 14 CFR 11.89. 2. By adding the following new AD: British Aerospace: Applies to Model B.121 Series 1,II, and III (all serial numbers) airplanes certificated in any category. Compliance: Required initially within 50 hours time-in-service (T1S) for airplanes having or upon accumulating 2,450 hours or more TIS, and thereafter at intervals of 50 hours TIS, unless already accomplished. To assure the integrity to the vertical fin/ fuselage attachment structure, accomplish the following: (a) Visually inspect for cracks in the following areas: (1) Center Angle, Part Number (P/N) BE- 10-10085 in accordance with paragraph 3. "ACTION" subparagraph (c) of British Aerospace (BAe] Service Bulletin (S/B) No. B121/86, dated March 29, 1984. (i) If cracks are found that equal or exceed the conditions shown in paragraph 3. "ACTION" subparagraph (c) of BAe S/B No. B121/86, prior to further flight, repair in accordance with repair instructions obtained from the manufacturer, British Aerospace, and approved by the Manager, Aircraft No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 41077 Certification Staff, AEU-100, Europe, Africa and Middle East Office, FAA, c/o American Embassy, 1000 Brussels, Belgium (hereinafter referred to as "Manager, AEU-100"). (ii) If no cracks are found or if cracks do not exceed the limits shown in paragraph 3. "ACTION" subparagraph (d) of BAe S/B No. B121/86, repeat the inspection at intervals not exceeding 50 hour TIS. (2) The underside of Diaphragm Decking upper, P/N BE-10-10155/1, in accordance with paragraph 3. "ACTION" subparagraph (d) of BAe S/B No. B121/86, dated March 29, 1984. (i)If cracks are found, prior to further flight, repair in accordance with the repair instructions obtained from the manufacturer, British Aerospace, and approved by the Manager, AEU-100. (ii] If no cracks are found, repeat the inspection at intervals not exceeding 50 hours TIS. (3)The heel of the side skin attachment flange (left and right) adjacent to the tailplane from spar attachment bolts in accordance with paragraph 3. "ACTION" subparagraph (e)of BAe S/B No. B121/86, dated March 29, 1984. (i)If cracks are found, prior to further flight, repair in accordance with repair instructions obtained from the manufacturer, British Aerospace, and approved by the Manager, AEU-100. (ii) If no cracks are found, repeat the inspection at intervals not exceeding 50 hours TIS. (b) Extension or elimination of the repetitive inspections specified in this AD may be inculded as part of the FAA-approved repair obtained in accordance with paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(2}(i), and (a)(3)[i) of this AD. (c) Aircraft may be flown in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation 21.197 to a location where this AD can be accomplished. (d) An equivalent means of compliance with this AD may be used if approved by the Manager, Aircraft Certification Staff, AEU- 100, Europe, Africa and Middle East Office, FAA, c/o American Embassy, 1000 Brussels, Belgium. All persons affected by this directive may obtain a copy of the document referred to herein upon request to British Aerospace, Engineering Department, Post Office Box 17414, Dulles International Airport, Washington, DC 20041; Telephone (703) 435- 9100, or FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Room 1558, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri '64106. This amendment becomes effective on December 18, 1986. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 3, 1986. Jerold M. Chavkin, Acting Director,CentralRegion. [FR Doc. 86-25533 Filed 11-12-46; 8:45 am] BILUNG CODE 4910-13-M 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. 78-CE-23-AD; Amdt. 39-5460] Airworthiness Directives; Great Lakes Models 2T-1A-1 and 2T-IA-2 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment revises Airworthiness Directive (AD) 78-26-10, Amendment 39-3384 applicable to Great Lakes Models 2T-1A-1 and 2T-1A-2 airplanes. AD 78-26-10 requires repetitive visual inspections of the support plates at both ends of the heat exchanger for cracks. The manufacturr subsequently introduced a design change to the cockpit heater system which makes the requirements of AD 78-26-10 inapplicable to those airplanes which are equipped with a cockpit heater system other than Part Number (P/N) 50146. Accordingly, the amendment allows those airplanes which have installed such a cockpit heater system to be exempt from compliance with the AD. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 17, 1986. Compliance: As prescribed in the body of the AD. ADDRESSES: Information applicable to this AD is contained in the Rules Docket and may be obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 78-CE-23- AD, Room 1558, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Terry Fahr, ANE-153, Federal Aviation Administration, New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; Telephone (617) 273-7103. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment revises Amendment 39-3384 (44 FR 1081), AD 78-26-10, which currently requires repetitive inspection of the cockpit heater system on all Great Lakes Models 2T-1A-1 and 2T-1A-2 airplanes to preclude contamination of the cockpit heater air with carbon monoxide. Subsequent to issuance of this AD,the manufacturer introduced a design change to the cockpit heater system which makes the requirements of AD 78-26-10 inapplicable for those airplanes which are equipped with a cockpit heater system other than P/N 50146. Consequently, a proposal to amend Part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations IFAR) .to revise AD 78-26- 10 to allow those airplanes which have a cockpit heater.system other than P/N 50146 to be exempt from further compliance with the AD was published in the Federal Register on July 15, 1986 (51 FR 25569]. Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to comment on the proposal. No comments or objections were received on the proposal or the FAA determination of the related cost to the public. Accordingly, the final rule will be adopted without change. This amendment imposes no additional burden on any person. The cost of compliance with the revised AD is unchanged from the current AD and will not have a significant financial impact on any small entities operating these airplanes. Therefore, I certify that this action: (1) Is not a "major rule" under Executive Order 12291; (2) is not a "significant rule" under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the regulatory 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. Adoption of the Amendment PART 39-[AMENDED] Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends § 39.13 of Part 39 of the FAR as follows: 1. The authority citation for Part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g) [Revised Pub. L. 97-449, January 12, 1983); and 14 CFR 11.89. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. By revising AD 78-26-10, Amendment 39-3384, as follows: Revise paragraphs A)I., A)2., A)3., and Figure 1 by replacing "cockpit heater system" with "P/N 50146 cockpit heater system". Revise paragraph (C) to read as follows: The actions and inspections specified in paragraphs A)2. and A)3. of this AD may be discontinued upon either removal of the P/N 50146 cockpit heater system per paragraph B) of this AD, or.replacement of the P/N 50146 cockpit heater system with a different FAA approved cockpit heater system. Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1986 / Rules and Regulations Revise paragraph (D) to read as follows: Any equivalent method of compliance with this AD must be approved by the Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Federal Aviation Administration, New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803. This amendment revises AD 78-26-10, Amendment 39-3384. This amendment becomes effective on December 17, 1986. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 31, 1986. Jerold M. Chavkin, Acting Director,CentralRegion. [FR Doc. 86-25530 Filed 11-12-86; 8:45 am] BILUNG CODE 4910-13-M 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. 86-CE-55-AD; Amdt. 39-5462] Airworthiness Directives; Collins Model DME-42 Distance Measuring Equipment AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new Airworthiness Directive (AD), applicable to Collins Model DME-42 Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) transceivers which have incorporated Collins Service Bulletin, DME-42 SB-5, dated August 11, 1986. Transceivers modified by this Service Bulletin, identified as Part Number (P/N) 622- 6263-002, may cause erroneous display of the station identifier with associated distance to go, time to go and audio identifier that is different from the station manually selected. This display of erroneous information during periods of high cockpit workload in IFR - conditions such as an ILS approach, could result in incorrect interpretation of aircraft location and possible subsequent loss of the aircraft. The removal and modification of these transceivers as prescribed in the AD will assure safe and proper operation of the DME. DATES: Effective November 17, 1986. Compliance: As prescribed in the body of the AD. ADDRESSES: Collins Service Bulletin DME-42 SB-6, dated October 15, 1986, may be obtained from Collins Avionics Division/Rockwell International, 400 Collins Road NE., Cedar Rapids, Iowa 42498. A copy of this information is also contained in the Rules Docket, FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Room 1558, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bill Trammell, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, ACE-130A, 1075 Inner Loop Road, College Park, Georgia 30337; Telephone (404) 763-7781. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Collins reported to the FAA that a condition of erroneous display was found during flight testing of a newly installed DME- 42 transceiver. This erroneous display can result in an incorrect interpretation of aircraft location and if this occurs during a critical phase of flight, loss of the aircraft could result. Collins confirmed by engineering laboratory tests that the erroneous display is attributed to incorporation of Collins Service Bulletin DME-42 SB-5, dated August 11, 1986, into the transceiver. This Service Bulletin modifies the transceiver, and re- identifies the unit as P/N 622-6263-002. As a result, Collins issued Service Bulletin DME-42 SB-6, dated October 15, 1986, which removes the modification of Service Bulletin SB-5 and restores the P/N 622-6263--001 identification. Transceivers that have not incorporated Service Bulletin DME- 42 SB-5 or those P/N 622-6263-002 transceivers restored by Service Bulletin DME-42 SB-6 to P/N 622-6263-001 configuration do not demonstrate this malfunction. Since the FAA has determined that the unsafe condition described herein is likely to exist in other transceivers which have incorporated Collins Service Bulletin DME-42 SB-5, an AD is being issued requiring the removal of these transceivers from service and modification back to the original configuration. Because a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and public procedures hereon are impractical and good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days. The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that is not major under section 8 of Executive Order 12291. It is impracticable for the agency to follow the procedures of Order 12291 with respect to this rule since the rule must be issued immediately to correct this condition in aircraft. It has been further determined that this document involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). If this action is subsequently determined to involve a significant regulation, a final regulatory evaluation or analysis, as appropriate, will be prepared and placed in the regulatory docket (otherwise, an evaluation is not required). A copy of it, when filed, may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket under the caption "ADDRESSES" at the location identified. Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aviation safety, Aircraft, Safety. PART 39-[AMENDEDI Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends § 39.13 of Part 39 of the FAR as follows: 1. The Authority citation for Part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), and 1421 and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g) (Revised, Pub. L-97-449, January 12, 1983); and 14 CFR 11.89. 2. By adding the following new AD: Collins Avionics Division/Rockweli International: Applies to Collins Model DME-42, P/N 622-6263-002, Distance Measuring Equipment. Compliance: Required as indicated after the effective date of this AD, unless already accomplished. To prevent display of erroneous DMEF-42 information, accomplish the following: (a) For aircraft with Collins Model DME-42 Distance Measuring Equipment installed, within the next 25 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD: (1) Visually inspect all installed DME-42 equipment to determine if Part Number (P/N) 622-6263-002 transceivers are installed. (2) If installed, prior to further flight remove the transceiver(s), and tag the unit(s) unserviceable until the modification specified in paragraph (b) of this AD is accomplished. (b) For all affected DME-42 transceivers, P/N 622-6263-02, not installed in an aircraft, prior to further use modify and reidentify the transceiver in accordance with the instructions contained in Collins Service Bulletin DME-42 SB-6, dated October 15, 1986. (c) Aircraft may be flown in accordance with FAR 21.197 to a location where this AD may be accomplished. (d) An equivalent means of compliance with this AD may be used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, ACE-115A, FAA, 1075 Inner Loop Road, College Park, Georgia 30337; Telephone (404) 763-7428. All persons affected by this directive may obtain copies of the document(s) referred to herein upon request to Collins Avionics Division/Rockwell International, 400 Collins Road NE., Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52498; or the FAA, Rules Docket, Office of Regional Counsel, Room 1558, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. 41078 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 41079 This amendment becomes effective on November 17, 1986. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on October 31, 1986. Jerold M. Chavkin, Acting Director,CentralRegion. [FR Doc. 86-25539 Filed 11-12-86; 8:45 am] BILUNG CODE 4910-13-M 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. 86-CE-16-AD, Amdt. 39-5461] Airworthiness Directives; Consolidated Aeronautics Incorporated Lake Model 250 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new Airworthiness Directive (AD), applicable to Consolidated Aeronautics Incorporated Lake Model 250 airplanes which requires the addition of hardware on the fuel shutoff handle. This hardware is needed to prevent the fuel shutoff handle from binding on the cabin upholstery which could result in preventing the flight crew from isolating the fuel system from the engine compartment, thereby creating an extreme hazard if the airplane experiences an inflight fire or similar emergency. DATE: Effective: December 17, 1986. Compliance: As prescribed in the body of the AD. ADDRESSES: Lake Service Bulletin No. B-66, dated May 31, 1985, applicable to this AD, may be obtained from: Lake Aircraft, Laconia Airport, Laconia, New Hampshire 03646. A copy of the service bulletin is contained in the Rules Docket, Docket Number 86-CE-16-AD, in the Office of the Regional Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, Central Region, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Mr. Wayne Gaulzetti, ANE-153, Federal Aviation Administration, New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington ,'Massachusetts 01803; Telephone 617-273-7102. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend Part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations to include an AD requiring the addition of hardware on the fuel shutoff handle on certain Lake Model 250 airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 8, 1986 (51 FR 24715). The proposal was prompted by the discovery that in certain Lake Model 250 airplanes the upholstery can restrict movement of the fuel shutoff valve, preventing the flight crew from isolating the fuel system from the engine compartment if the airplane experiences an inflight fire or similar emergency. Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to comment on the proposal. No comments or objections were received on the proposal or the FAA determination of the related cost to the public. Accordingly, the proposal is adopted without change. The FAA has determined that this regulation involves approximately 16 airplanes, at an approximate one-time cost of $75 for each airplane or a total one-time fleet cost of $1200. The cost is so small that compliance with the proposal will not have a significant financial impact on any small entities owning affected airplanes. Therefore, I certify that this action (1) is not a "major rule" under Executive Order 12291; (2) is not a "significant rule" under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the regulatory 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. PART 39-I[AMENDED] Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends § 39.13 of Part 39 of the FAR as follows: 1. The authority citation for Part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g) (Revised Pub. L. 97-449, January 12,1983); and 14 CFR 11.89. 2. By adding the following new AD: Consolidated Aeronautics Incorporated: Applies to Consolidated Aeronautics Incorporated, Lake Model 250 Airplanes, Serial Numbers 2 through 17, equipped with fuel shutoff valve mouting plate part number 3-6572-17, certificated in any category. Compliance: Required within the next 100 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD, unless already accomplished. To prevent the possible contact of the fuel shutoff valve handle hardware and the cabin rear upholstery panel, accomplish the following: (a) Modify the fuel shutoff valve mounting plate in accordance with instructions in Lake Aircraft Division Consolidated Aeronautics Incorporated Service Bulletin No. B-66 dated May 31, 1985. (b) Airplanes may be flown in accordance with FAR 21.197 to a location where this AD can be accomplished. (c) An equivalent means of compliance with this AD may be used if approved by the Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, ANE- 150, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803. All persons affected by this directive may obtain copies of the documents referred to herein upon request to Lake Aircraft, Laconia Airport, Laconia, New Hampshire 03646; or Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Regional Counsel, Room 1558, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. This amendment becomes effective on December 17, 1986. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 31, 1986. Jerold M. Chavkin, Acting Director,CentralRegion. [FR Doc. 86-25538 Filed 11-12-86; 8:45 am] BILUNG CODE 4910-13-L SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 211 [Release No. SAB-65] Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 65 AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission. ACTION: Publication of Staff Accounting Bulletin. SUMMARY: The interpretations in this staff accounting bulletin indicate the staffs views on certain matters involved in the application of Accounting Series Release Nos. 130 and 135 regarding risk sharing in business combinations accounted for as pooling of interests. DATE: November 5, 1986. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Salva, Office of the Chief Accountant (202-272-2130), or Howard P. Hodges, Jr. Division of Corporation Finance (202-272-2553), Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The statements in staff accounting bulletins are not rules or interpretations of the Commission nor are they published as bearing the Commission's official approval. They represent interpretations and practices followed by the Division of Corporation Finance and the Office of the Chief Accountant in administering Federal Register / Vol. 51, 41080 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1986 / Rules and Regulations the disclosure requirements of the Federal Securities laws. Shirley E. Hollis, Assistant Secretary. November 5, 1986. PART 21 1-AMENDED] Part 211 of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended by adding Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 65 to the table found in Subpart B. Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 65 The staff hereby adds Section E to Topic 2 of the staff accounting bulletin series. Section E discusses the staffs views on certain matters involved in the application of Accounting Series Release Nos. 130 and 135 regarding risk sharing in business combinations accounted for as pooling of interests. Topic 2: Business Combinations E. Risk Sharing in Pooling of Interests Facts:The Commission established and published guidelines in Accounting Series Release Nos. 130 and 1351 which are used in making determinations on whether the sharing of rights and risks among constituent stockholder groups will have occurred in order for a business combination to be accounted for as a pooling of interests. Those guidelines indicate that the requisite risk-sharing will have occurred if no affiliate of either company reduces his risk relative to any common shares received in the business combination until publication of financial results covering at least 30 days of post-merger combined operations. Question 1: Are affiliates of each combining company restricted from dispositions of their shares or do the restrictions apply only to affiliates of the "target" company actually receiving shares in the business combination? InterpretiveResponse:Affiliates of each combining company may not reduce their risk relative to their common shareholder positions during the indicated time period in order to achieve the risk sharing required for the applicability of pooling of interests accounting. Any one of the combining companies may issue shares in exchange for the shares of the other combining companies. Alternatively, a new corporation may be formed to issue its shares to effect a combination of the companies. As indicated in APB Opinion 'These guidelines were codified in section 201.01 of the Codification of Financial Reporting Policies (FRP), a separate publication issued by the Commission. 16, "the choice of issuing corporation is essentially a matter of convenience." The staff therefore believes that allowing affiliates of the issuing company to immediately sell or otherwise dispose of their shares while restricting such actions by the affiliates of the "target" company would be inconsistent with the risk sharing element that is essential in poolings. Que