Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 215 / Monday, November 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 66495

order provisions. Therefore, this rule

places the decision with the individual

handler as to whether the costs are

outweighed by the benefits.

Individual seasons and different

periods during the same season can

present a fair amount of variability in

production and size. This change

provides handlers with some additional

flexibility when packing for size to

allow handlers to make some

adjustments in order to maximize

returns and to service customer

demand. This rule will provide the

opportunity for handlers to make

adjustments based on market

conditions. This should have a positive

effect on returns.

The Committee recommended these

changes to improve the marketing of

Florida tomatoes. The opportunities and

benefits of this rule are expected to be

equally available to all tomato handlers

and growers regardless of their size of

operation. This action will have a

beneficial impact on producers and

handlers since it will allow tomato

handlers more flexibility in making

tomatoes available to meet consumer

needs consistent with crop and market

conditions.

The Committee discussed alternatives

to this recommendation, including

leaving the regulations as currently

issued. All Committee members agreed

that this change would be helpful in

improving pack appearance and in

providing handlers some additional

flexibility. Therefore, the Committee

voted to make this change rather than

leave the size designation for 6×6

unchanged.

This rule will not impose any

additional reporting or recordkeeping

requirements on either small or large

tomato handlers. As with all Federal

marketing order programs, reports and

forms are periodically reviewed to

reduce information requirements and

duplication by industry and public

sector agencies.

In addition, the Department has not

identified any relevant Federal rules

that duplicate, overlap or conflict with

this rule.

Further, the Committee’s meeting was

widely publicized throughout the

tomato industry and all interested

persons were invited to attend the

meeting and participate in Committee

deliberations. Like all Committee

meetings, the September 8, 2000,

meeting was a public meeting and all

entities, both large and small, were able

to express their views on this issue.

Also, the Committee has a number of

appointed subcommittees to review

certain issues and make

recommendations to the Committee.

The Committee’s Marketing

Subcommittee met on August 21, 2000,

and discussed this issue in detail. That

meeting was also a public meeting and

both large and small entities were able

to participate and express their views.

Finally, interested persons are invited to

submit information on the regulatory

and informational impacts of this action

on small businesses.

A small business guide on complying

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop

marketing agreements and orders may

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/

fv/moab.html. Any questions about the

compliance guide should be sent to Jay

Guerber at the previously mentioned

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

This rule invites comments on a

change to the size requirements

currently prescribed under the Florida

tomato marketing order. Any comments

received will be considered prior to

finalization of this rule.

After consideration of all relevant

material presented, including the

Committee’s recommendation, and

other information, it is found that this

interim final rule, as hereinafter set

forth, will tend to effectuate the

declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also

found and determined upon good cause

that it is impracticable, unnecessary,

and contrary to the public interest to

give preliminary notice prior to putting

this rule into effect and that good cause

exists for not postponing the effective

date of this rule until 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register

because: (1) The regulatory period for

the 2000–2001 shipping season began

October 10 and the changes should be

in place as close to the beginning of the

season as possible; (2) Florida tomato

handlers are aware of this action which

was unanimously recommended by the

Committee at a public meeting and

interested parties had an opportunity to

provide input; (3) the packing flexibility

afforded handlers can be utilized as they

see fit, they will not need additional

time to comply with the regulation; and

(4) this rule provides a 60-day comment

period and any comments received will

be considered prior to finalization of

this rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 966

Marketing agreements, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Tomatoes.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 966 is amended as

follows:

PART 966—TOMATOES GROWN IN

FLORIDA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 966 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

§ 966.323 [Amended]

2. In § 966.323, the table to paragraph

(a)(2)(i) is amended by removing

‘‘227⁄32’’ and adding ‘‘229⁄32’’ in its place.

Dated: October 31, 2000.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–28332 Filed 11–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–130–AD; Amendment

39–11954; AD 2000–22–08]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa

Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.

(EMBRAER) Model EMB–120 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain EMBRAER Model

EMB–120 series airplanes, that requires

inspections of certain components, and

corrective action, if necessary. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent deterioration and

deformation of the mass-balance

weights of the aileron, which could

affect the surface balance of the aileron

and result in loss of aileron control and

consequent reduced controllability of

the airplane. This action is intended to

address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective December 11, 2000.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of December

11, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica

S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP

12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP,

Brazil. This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

66496 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 215 / Monday, November 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown

Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite

450, Atlanta, Georgia; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Satish Lall, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ACE–

117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office, One Crown Center,

1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450,

Atlanta, Georgia 30337–2748; telephone

(770) 703–6082; fax (770) 703–6097.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Model

EMB–120 series airplanes, was

published in the Federal Register on

July 17, 2000 (65 FR 44013). That action

proposed to require inspections of

certain components, and corrective

action, if necessary.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were submitted in response

to the proposal or the FAA’s

determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

The FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that

approximately 28 U.S.-registered

airplanes will be required to measure

the gap between the mass-balance

weights and aileron hinge attachment. It

will take approximately 2 work hours

per airplane to accomplish the required

measurement, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the required

measurement on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $3,360, or $120 per

airplane, per inspection cycle.

The FAA estimates that

approximately 230 U.S.-registered

airplanes will be required to inspect the

mass-balance weights to detect any

cavity, hole, or delamination. It will

take approximately 8 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the required

inspection, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the required

inspection on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $110,400, or $480 per

airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator will accomplish those

actions in the future if this AD were not

adopted. The cost impact figures

discussed in AD rulemaking actions

represent only the time necessary to

perform the specific actions actually

required by the AD. These figures

typically do not include incidental

costs, such as the time required to gain

access and close up, planning time, or

time necessitated by other

administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have a substantial direct effect on

the States, on the relationship between

the national Government and the States,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, it is

determined that this final rule does not

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (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, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

2000–22–08 Empresa Brasileira de

Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer):

Amendment 39–11954. Docket 2000–

NM–130–AD.

Applicability: Model EMB–120 series

airplanes, serial numbers 120–0001 through

120–0333 inclusive; certificated in any

category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent deterioration and deformation

of the mass-balance weights of the aileron,

which could affect the surface balance of the

aileron and result in loss of aileron control

and consequent reduced controllability of the

airplane, accomplish the following:

Measurement of Clearance and Corrective

Actions

(a) For airplanes having serial numbers

120–0291, 120–0294, and 120–0296 through

120–0333 inclusive: Within 150 flight hours

after the effective date of this AD, measure

the clearance between the aileron massbalance weights and attach fittings on the left

and right sides of the airplane, in accordance

with PART I of the Accomplishment

Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin

120–27–0077, Change No. 01, dated October

24, 1997.

(1) If the clearance is within the acceptable

limits described in the service bulletin,

thereafter, repeat the measurement at

intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight hours

until the actions required by paragraph (b) of

this AD have been accomplished.

(2) If the clearance is outside the

acceptable limits described in the service

bulletin, prior to further flight, replace the

affected mass-balance weight with a new,

improved mass-balance weight, in

accordance with PART III of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin. Such replacement terminates the

requirement to accomplish paragraph (b) of

this AD.

Detailed Visual Inspection and Follow-On

Actions

(b) For all airplanes: Within 2,000 flight

hours after the effective date of this AD,

perform a one-time detailed visual inspection

of the aileron mass-balance weights to detect

any cavity, hole, or delamination, in

accordance with PART II of the

Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER

Service Bulletin 120–27–0077, Change No.

01, dated October 24, 1997. Such inspection

constitutes terminating action for the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 215 / Monday, November 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 66497

repetitive inspections required by paragraph

(a)(1) of this AD for airplanes subject to

paragraph (a) of this AD.

(1) If no cavity, hole, or delamination is

detected: Prior to further flight, perform a

one-time detailed visual inspection to detect

white powder on the surface of the massbalance weights, in accordance with PART II

of the Accomplishment Instructions of the

service bulletin. If any white powder is

found, remove the white powder in

accordance with the service bulletin.

(2) If any cavity, hole, or delamination is

found, prior to further flight, replace the

affected mass-balance weight with a new,

improved mass-balance weight, in

accordance with PART III of the

Accomplishment Instructions of the service

bulletin.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

(e) The actions shall be done in accordance

with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120–27–

0077, Change No. 01, dated October 24, 1997.

This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.

(EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao

Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil. Copies may be

inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895

Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta,

Georgia; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Brazilian airworthiness directive 98–01–

02, dated January 15, 1998.

Effective Date

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

December 11, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October

24, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–27789 Filed 11–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–348–AD; Amendment

39–11955; AD 2000–22–09]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; British

Aerospace (Jetstream) Model 4101

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain British Aerospace

(Jetstream) Model 4101 airplanes, that

requires inspection of certain

components, and corrective action, if

necessary. The actions specified by this

AD are intended to prevent loosening of

the locknut holding the main landing

gear (MLG) piston to the ramrod, which

could result in detachment of the MLG

piston from the ramrod and loss of

hydraulic control of the MLG. This

action is intended to address the

identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Effective December 11, 2000.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of December

11, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from British Aerospace Regional

Aircraft American Support, 13850

Mclearen Road, Herndon, Virginia

20171. This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain British

Aerospace (Jetstream) Model 4101

airplanes was published in the Federal

Register on August 29, 2000 (65 FR

52371). That action proposed to require

inspection of certain components, and

corrective action, if necessary.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were submitted in response

to the proposal or the FAA’s

determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

The FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 59 airplanes

of U.S. registry will be affected by this

AD, that it will take approximately 1

work hour per airplane to accomplish

the inspection, and that the average

labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

inspection on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $3,540, or $60 per

airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted. The cost impact

figures discussed in AD rulemaking

actions represent only the time

necessary to perform the specific actions

actually required by the AD. These

figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as the time

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have a substantial direct effect on

the States, on the relationship between

the national Government and the States,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, it is

determined that this final rule does not

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT