This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

21888

Vol. 66, No. 85

Wednesday, May 2, 2001

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 29

[Docket No. TB–00–23]

Tobacco Inspection—Growers

Referendum

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Notice of referendum.

SUMMARY: This document announces

that a referendum will be conducted by

mail during the period of June 4–8,

2001, for producers of flue-cured

tobacco who sell their tobacco at

auction in Fairmont-Fair Bluff, North

Carolina, and Loris, South Carolina, to

determine producer approval of the

designation of the Fairmont-Fair Bluff

and Loris tobacco markets as one

consolidated auction market.

DATES: The referendum will be held

June 4–8, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Coats, Associate Deputy

Administrator, Tobacco Programs,

Agricultural Marketing Service, United

States Department of Agriculture, P.O.

Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090–

6456; telephone: (202) 205–0508.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is

hereby given of a mail referendum on

the designation of a consolidated

auction market at Fairmont-Fair Bluff,

North Carolina, and Loris, South

Carolina. Fairmont-Fair Bluff, North

Carolina, was designated on April 6,

1995, (7 CFR 29.8001) as a flue-cured

tobacco auction market and Loris, South

Carolina, was designated on August 16,

1941, under the Tobacco Inspection Act

(7 U.S.C. 511 et seq.). Under this Act

those markets have been receiving

mandatory grading services from USDA.

On September 6, 2000, an application

was made to the Secretary of

Agriculture to consolidate the

designated markets of Fairmont-Fair

Bluff, North Carolina, and Loris, South

Carolina. The application, filed by sales

supervisors on those markets, was made

pursuant to the regulations promulgated

under the Tobacco Inspection Act (7

CFR part 29.1–29.3). On November 9,

2000, a public hearing was held in

Tabor City, North Carolina, pursuant to

the regulations. A Review Committee,

established pursuant to 7 CFR 29.3(h)),

has reviewed and considered the

application, the testimony presented at

the hearing, the exhibits received in

evidence, and other available

information. The Committee

recommended to the Secretary that the

application be granted and the Secretary

approved the application on March 27,

2001.

Before a new market can be officially

designated, a referendum must be held

to determine that a two-thirds majority

of producers favor the designation. It is

hereby determined that the referendum

will be held by mail during the period

of June 4–8, 2001. The purpose of the

referendum is to determine whether

farmers who sold their tobacco on the

designated markets at Fairmont-Fair

Bluff and Loris are in favor of, or

opposed to, the designation of the

consolidated market for the 2001 and

succeeding crop years. Accordingly, if a

two-thirds majority of those tobacco

producers voting in the referendum

favor the consolidation, a new market

will be designated as and will be called

Fairmont-Fair Bluff-Loris.

To be eligible to vote in the

referendum a tobacco producer must

have sold flue-cured tobacco on either

the Fairmont-Fair Bluff, North Carolina,

or Loris, South Carolina, auction

markets during the 2000 marketing

season. Any farmer who believes he or

she is eligible to vote in the referendum

but has not received a mail ballot by

June 4, 2001, should immediately

contact William Coats at (202) 205–

0508.

The referendum will be held in

accordance with the provisions for

referenda of the Tobacco Inspection Act,

as amended (7 U.S.C. 511d), and the

regulations for such referendum set

forth in 7 CFR 29.74.

Dated: April 25, 2001.

Kenneth C. Clayton,

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 01–10894 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 981

[Docket No. FV01–981–1 PR]

Almonds Grown in California; Revision

of Requirements Regarding Quality

Control Program

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This rule invites comments

on a revision to the administrative rules

and regulations of the California almond

marketing order (order) pertaining to the

quality control program. The order

regulates the handling of almonds

grown in California, and is administered

locally by the Almond Board of

California (Board). Under the order,

handlers receiving almonds from

growers must have them inspected to

determine the percentage of inedible

almonds in each lot. Based on these

inspections, handlers incur an inedible

disposition obligation. They must

satisfy this obligation by disposing of

inedible almonds or almond material in

outlets such as oil and animal feed. This

rule would require at least 25 percent of

each handler s disposition obligation to

be satisfied by disposing of inedible

almonds. Handlers with total annual

inedible obligations of less than 1,000

pounds would be exempt from the 25

percent requirement. This rule would

also implement a change requiring

inedible obligation reports prepared by

the Federal-State Inspection Service

(inspection agency) to cover weekly

rather than monthly periods, consistent

with current practice. These proposed

changes would help remove more

inedible product from human

consumption channels, and improve

program administration.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit written comments

concerning this proposal. Comments

must be sent to the Docket Clerk,

Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,

AMS, USDA, room 2525–S, P.O. Box

96456, Washington, DC 20090–6456;

Fax: (202) 720–8938, or E-mail:

moab.docketclerk@usda.gov. All

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Proposed Rules 21889

comments should reference the docket

number and the date and page number

of this issue of the Federal Register and

will be made available for public

inspection in the Office of the Docket

Clerk during regular business hours, or

can be viewed at http://

www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martin Engeler, Assistant Regional

Manager, California Marketing Field

Office, Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,

AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street,

suite 102B, Fresno, California 93721;

telephone: (559) 487–5901, Fax: (559)

487–5906; or George Kelhart, Technical

Advisor, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room

2525–S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456; telephone: (202) 720–

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938.

Small businesses may request

information on compliance with this

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber,

Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,

AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room

2525–S, Washington, DC 20090–6456;

telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202)

720–8938, or E-mail:

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

proposal is issued under Marketing

Order No. 981, as amended (7 CFR part

981), regulating the handling of almonds

grown in California, hereinafter referred

to as the ‘‘order.’’ The marketing order

is effective under the Agricultural

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as

amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter

referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’

The Department of Agriculture

(Department) is issuing this rule in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This proposal has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended

to have retroactive effect. This rule will

not preempt any State or local laws,

regulations, or policies, unless they

present an irreconcilable conflict with

this rule. The Act provides that

administrative proceedings must be

exhausted before parties may file suit in

court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the

Act, any handler subject to an order may

file with the Secretary a petition stating

that the order, any provision of the

order, or any obligation imposed in

connection with the order is not in

accordance with law and request a

modification of the order or to be

exempted therefrom. A handler is

afforded the opportunity for a hearing

on the petition. After the hearing the

Secretary would rule on the petition.

The Act provides that the district court

of the United States in any district in

which the handler is an inhabitant, or

has his or her principal place of

business, has jurisdiction to review the

Secretary’s ruling on the petition,

provided an action is filed not later than

20 days after the date of the entry of the

ruling.

This proposed rule invites comments

on revisions to the administrative rules

and regulations pertaining to the quality

control program under the California

almond marketing order. The proposal

would require that at least 25 percent of

handlers inedible disposition

obligations be satisfied by disposing of

inedible almonds to accepted users of

such product. Handlers with total

annual inedible obligations of less than

1,000 pounds would be exempt from

this requirement. The proposal would

also require inedible obligation reports

prepared by the inspection agency to

cover weekly rather than monthly

periods. The Board initially

recommended adding the 25 percent

disposition requirement at a July 12,

2000, meeting. The Department

subsequently requested additional

information regarding reporting

requirements and additional inspection

costs. At a meeting on December 6,

2000, the Board provided the requested

information and added a

recommendation to change the reporting

requirement to require inedible

obligation reports prepared by the

inspection agency to cover weekly

rather than monthly periods. Both

proposals were unanimously

recommended by the Board.

Section 981.42 of the order provides

authority for a quality control program.

Section 981.42(a) requires handlers to

obtain incoming inspection on almonds

received from growers to determine the

percent of inedible kernels in each lot

of any variety. This information is then

reported to the Board. Section 981.42(a)

further requires handlers to dispose of a

quantity of almonds or almond product

to satisfy an inedible disposition

obligation as determined by the

incoming inspection. This section also

provides authority for the Board, with

the approval of the Secretary, to

establish rules and regulations

necessary and incidental to the

administration of the order’s quality

control provisions.

Twenty-Five Percent Requirement

Section 981.442 of the order’s

administrative rules and regulations

specifies that the weight of inedible

kernels in each lot of any variety of

almonds in excess of 1 percent of the

kernel weight received by a handler

shall constitute that handler’s

disposition obligation. Handlers are

required to satisfy the disposition

obligation by delivering packer

pickouts, kernels rejected in blanching,

pieces of kernels, meal accumulated in

manufacturing, or other material, to

crushers, feed manufacturers, feeders, or

dealers in nut wastes on record with the

Board as accepted users of such

product. Accepted users dispose of this

material to non-human consumption

outlets. Currently, any of the

aforementioned almond material can be

used by handlers to satisfy any or all of

their inedible disposition obligation.

This rule would require that at least 25

percent of handlers disposition

obligations be satisfied with inedible

kernels as defined under § 981.408 of

the rules and regulations. Handlers with

total annual inedible obligations of less

than 1,000 pounds would be exempt

from the 25 percent requirement.

The overall intent of the quality

control program is to remove inedible

almonds from product shipped to

consumers. Inedible almonds are poor

quality kernels or pieces of defective

almonds that in some instances may

contain aflatoxin. Removing inedible

almonds from human consumption

channels provides a better quality

product to consumers.

When the quality control program was

initially implemented, it was recognized

that it was not commercially feasible for

handlers to remove all inedible almonds

during the course of processing. Thus,

handlers were allowed to use other

almond material besides inedible

almonds to satisfy their inedible

disposition obligation.

Over the years, changes have occurred

in the industry. There has been a

marked increase in the amount of

almonds used in the manufacture of

almond products. This has led to an

increase in the amount of almond byproduct material generated by handlers.

Handlers can use this product to satisfy

their disposition obligation. Because of

the increased availability of this almond

by-product material for use in satisfying

the disposition obligation, handlers may

be less diligent than in the past in

removing inedible almonds from their

finished product.

Changes in the marketplace have also

created conditions allowing handlers to

deliver product containing a higher

level of inedible almonds to their

customers. Buyers, especially those who

process almonds into other products,

accept almonds with a higher inedible

content than in the past. They can

purchase this type of product at reduced

price levels and still meet their needs.

21890 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Although there is a market for this

product, handlers shipping product

with a higher inedible content is not

consistent with the intent of the quality

control program, which is to remove

inedible almonds from human

consumption channels.

Finally, improvements in technology

have enabled the delivery of a relatively

clean product from shellers to handlers.

Almonds are typically shelled, then

delivered to handlers. In some

instances, this product can meet a

customer s specifications without

further handler processing to remove

inedible almonds.

The intent of the quality control

program is to remove inedible almonds

from product prior to shipment. Because

of the aforementioned factors, the Board

believes the intent of the quality control

program is not sufficiently achieved.

Therefore, the Board recommended

requiring that at least 25 percent of

handlers disposition obligations be

satisfied with inedible almonds. This

proposed change is designed to ensure

that handlers remove more inedible

almonds from their product prior to

shipment. It is expected that this change

would result in a higher quality product

shipped to consumers and more

inedible almonds being removed from

human consumption channels, thereby

better effectuating the intent of the

Board s quality control program.

Reporting Period Change

Section 981.442(a)(3) of the

regulations requires the Federal-State

Inspection Service (inspection agency)

to prepare a report for each handler

showing the weight of almonds received

and the inedible content, and provide

copies of the report to the Board and

handler. Section 981.442(a)(3) currently

requires this report from the inspection

agency to cover a period of one day or

a period not exceeding one month.

In carrying out the quality control

program under the order, the almond

industry utilizes the inspection agency

to perform the required inspections.

Prior to the 2000–2001 crop year, the

inspection agency issued a report

covering a period of one day, or a period

not exceeding one month. At the

beginning of the 2000–2001 crop year,

the inspection agency began issuing a

report covering weekly periods. This

period has made it easier for the Board

to collect and disseminate statistical

information to handlers in a more

timely manner. To bring the rules and

regulations into conformity with current

practices, the Board recommended

revising § 981.442(a)(3) to require the

inspection agency s report to the Board

and handlers to cover weekly periods.

Additional Change

Finally, this proposal would add

clarifying language to the regulations

regarding the mechanics of crediting the

disposition obligation. The proposed

language would clarify that the handlers

disposition obligations are credited

upon satisfactory completion of ABC

Form 8, and state who the responsible

parties are for completing ABC Form 8.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to requirements set forth in

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

has considered the economic impact of

this action on small entities.

Accordingly, AMS has prepared this

initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

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

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.

There are approximately 106 handlers

of California almonds who are subject to

regulation under the order and

approximately 7,000 almond producers

in the regulated area. Small agricultural

service firms have been defined by the

Small Business Administration (13 CFR

121.201) as those having annual receipts

of less than $5,000,000, and small

agricultural producers are defined as

those having annual receipts of less than

$500,000.

Data for the most recently completed

season indicate that about 63 percent of

the handlers ship under $5,000,000

worth of almonds and 37 percent ship

over $5,000,000 worth on an annual

basis. In addition, based on production

and grower price data reported by the

National Agricultural Statistics Service,

and the total number of almond

growers, the average annual grower

revenue was approximately $98,000. In

view of the foregoing, it can be

concluded that the majority of handlers

and producers of California almonds

may be classified as small entities,

excluding receipts from other sources.

This proposed rule would revise the

administrative rules and regulations

pertaining to the quality control

program under the California almond

marketing order. Section 981.42 of the

order provides authority for a quality

control program. Section 981.42(a)

requires almond handlers to obtain

incoming inspection on almonds

received from growers to determine the

percent of inedible kernels in each lot

of any variety. This information is

reported to the Board by the inspection

agency. Based on this incoming

inspection, handlers incur an inedible

disposition obligation. Handlers are

then required to dispose of a quantity of

almonds or almond material to accepted

users of such product (basically, nonhuman consumption outlets) to satisfy

their inedible disposition obligation.

Section 981.42 also provides authority

for the Board, with the approval of the

Secretary, to establish rules and

regulations necessary and incidental to

the administration of the order’s quality

control provisions. Section 981.442

contains the rules and regulations used

in administering the quality control

program.

This proposed rule would require that

at least 25 percent of a handler’s

inedible disposition obligation be

satisfied by disposing of inedible

almonds to the appropriate outlets.

Currently, handlers may dispose of

various types of almonds and almond

products to satisfy the obligation. The

purpose of this proposed 25 percent

requirement is to help ensure the intent

of the program is being met, which is to

remove inedible almonds from human

consumption channels. The rule would

also modify language to specify a

reporting period for the inspection

agency to not exceed one week rather

than one day or a period exceeding one

month. This change would bring the

rules and regulations into conformity

with reporting procedures currently

being followed.

There would be no additional cost to

the industry to incorporate the revised

reporting period into the regulations.

However, there would be additional

costs associated with implementing the

requirement that at least 25 percent of

each handler’s total inedible

dispositions be satisfied with inedible

almonds. Inspection costs would

increase slightly. Currently,

§ 981.442(a)(5) provides that the

inspection agency must determine the

almond content of each inedible

disposition for each handler. That

information is provided to the Board,

and is credited against the appropriate

handler’s inedible disposition obligation

after the disposition takes place. In

order to implement the 25 percent

requirement, it would be necessary for

the inspection agency to determine not

only the almond content of the

dispositions, but also the amount of

inedible product in the almond

material. This would require additional

analysis of samples by the inspection

agency. The inspection agency charges a

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Proposed Rules 21891

per-ton fee and an hourly fee for

inedible almond inspections. The per

ton fee would not change. However, the

number of hours required to implement

the additional analysis would increase.

It is estimated that the average total

number of hours currently spent on

inedible almond inspections could

increase up to 20 percent; that is, from

1,116 hours to 1,339 hours. At the rate

of $14 per hour, this would represent an

estimated increase to the industry of

approximately $3,122.

While there are additional costs to

this proposal, there are also benefits.

The intent of the quality control

program under the order is to remove

inedible almonds from human

consumption channels and provide an

improved quality product to consumers.

It would be difficult to estimate the

potential benefits of this proposed

action in dollar terms. However,

ensuring a good quality product to

consumers leads to consumer

satisfaction and repeat purchases, and

contributes to orderly marketing.

Based on the foregoing, the Board

believes that the costs of this proposal

would be outweighed by the benefits.

This proposal is beneficial to both the

almond industry and consumers.

Handlers incurring total annual

inedible obligations of less than 1,000

pounds would not be required to meet

the 25 percent requirement. The

approximately 30 handlers with such

small obligations are allowed under

current regulations to deliver their

inedible material to Board staff in lieu

of an accepted user. Almond Board staff

is not trained to perform inedible

analysis on almond product, and it

would not be feasible for handlers with

a 1,000 pound inedible obligation or

less to incur additional costs for

analyzing such small amounts of

product. This exemption is also

consistent with the RFA goal of

ensuring that regulatory actions do not

disproportionately impact smaller

businesses. Thus, the exemption is in

order.

One alternative to the proposals

would be leave the regulations

unchanged. With regard to the

inspection reporting period changes,

that was not considered viable because

the current practices differ from those

outlined in the marketing order

regulations. Regarding the 25 percent

inedible disposition requirement,

leaving the program unchanged would

not help ensure inedibles are removed

from human consumption channels.

Because of the significant amount of

almond by-product material available to

satisfy disposition obligations, it is

believed that some handlers can satisfy

their entire inedible obligation with this

material. This proposal would help

ensure inedibles are removed.

Another alternative would be to

require 100 percent of handlers

disposition obligations to be satisfied

with inedible almonds. However, such a

requirement would not be commercially

feasible for handlers. The Board believes

that setting a 25 percent requirement is

a reasonable change to better reflect the

intent of the program.

This proposed rule would not impose

any additional reporting or

recordkeeping requirements on either

small or large almond handlers. The

current information collection

requirements referenced in this

proposed rule have been previously

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) under OMB No.

0581–0071. 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.

The Department has not identified

any relevant Federal rules that

duplicate, overlap or conflict with this

proposed rule.

In addition, the Board’s meetings

were widely publicized throughout the

almond industry and all interested

persons were invited to attend the

meeting and participate in Board

deliberations. Like all Board meetings,

the July 12, 2000, and December 6,

2000, meetings were public meetings

and all entities, both large and small,

were able to express their views on this

issue. The Board itself is composed of

ten members, of whom five are

producers and five are handlers.

Also, the Board has a number of

appointed committees to review certain

issues and make recommendations to

the Board. The Board’s Quality Control

Committee met on July 11, 2000, and on

September 13, 2000, and discussed

these issues. Those meetings were also

public meetings 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.

A 30-day comment period is provided

to allow interested persons to respond

to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed

appropriate because this rule would

need to be in effect prior to the 2001–

2002 crop year, which begins August 1,

2001. Also, California almond handlers

are aware of these issues which were

discussed at public meetings and were

unanimously recommended by the

Board. All written comments timely

received will be considered before a

final determination is made on this

matter.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 981

Almonds, Marketing agreements,

Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 981 is proposed to

be amended as follows:

PART 981—ALMONDS GROWN IN

CALIFORNIA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 981 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. In § 981.442, paragraph (a)(5) and

the last sentence in paragraph (a)(3) are

revised to read as follows:

§ 981.442 Quality control.

(a) * * *

(3) * * * The report shall cover the

handler’s daily receipt or the handler’s

total receipts during a period not

exceeding one week, and shall be

submitted by the inspection agency to

the Board and the handler.

* * * * *

(5) Meeting the disposition obligation.

Each handler shall meet its disposition

obligation by delivering packer

pickouts, kernels rejected in blanching,

pieces of kernels, meal accumulated in

manufacturing, or other material, to

crushers, feed manufacturers, feeders, or

dealers in nut wastes on record with the

Board as accepted users. Handlers shall

notify the Board at least 72 hours prior

to delivery: Provided, That the Board or

its employees may lessen this

notification time whenever it

determines that the 72 hour requirement

is impracticable. The Board may

supervise deliveries at its option. In the

case of a handler having an annual total

obligation of less than 1,000 pounds,

delivery may be to the Board in lieu of

an accepted user, in which case the

Board would certify the disposition lot

and report the results to the USDA. For

dispositions by handlers with

mechanical sampling equipment,

samples may be drawn by the handler

in a manner acceptable to the Board and

the inspection agency. For all other

dispositions, samples shall be drawn by

21892 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Proposed Rules

or under supervision of the inspection

agency. Upon approval by the Board

and the inspection agency, sampling

may be accomplished at the accepted

user’s destination. The edible and

inedible almond meat content of each

delivery shall be determined by the

inspection agency and reported by the

inspection agency to the Board and the

handler. The handler’s disposition

obligation will be credited upon

satisfactory completion of ABC Form 8.

ABC Form 8, Part A, is filled out by the

handler, and Part B by the accepted

user. Deliveries containing less than 50

percent almond meat content shall not

be credited against the disposition

obligation. At least 25 percent of a

handler’s total crop year inedible

disposition obligation shall be satisfied

with dispositions consisting of inedible

kernels as defined in § 981.408:

Provided, That this 25 percent

requirement shall not apply to handlers

with total annual obligations of less

than 1,000 pounds. Each handler’s

disposition obligation shall be satisfied

when the almond meat content of the

material delivered to accepted users

equals the disposition obligation, but no

later than August 31 succeeding the

crop year in which the obligation was

incurred.

* * * * *

Dated: April 25, 2001.

Kenneth C. Clayton,

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 01–10892 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001–NM–12–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model

SAAB 2000 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

certain Saab Model SAAB 2000 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

testing of certain components of the

emergency pitch trim system (EPTS),

and corrective action, if necessary. This

action is necessary to prevent faulty

activation of the emergency pitch trim

actuator (EPTA), which could cause

damage to the elevator front spar,

resulting in reduced structural integrity

of the elevator and a non-functioning

EPTS. This action is intended to address

the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NM–

12–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

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

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. Comments may be

submitted via fax to (425) 227–1232.

Comments may also be sent via the

Internet using the following address:

9–anm–nprmcomment@faa.gov.

Comments sent via fax or the Internet

must contain ‘‘Docket No. 2001–NM–

12–AD’’ in the subject line and need not

be submitted in triplicate. Comments

sent via the Internet as attached

electronic files must be formatted in

Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or

ASCII text.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Saab Aircraft AB, SAAB Aircraft

Product Support, S–581.88, Linko ̈ping,

Sweden. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2125;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this action may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Submit comments using the following

format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue.

For example, discuss a request to

change the compliance time and a

request to change the service bulletin

reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific

change to the proposed AD is being

requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or

data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this action

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 2001–NM–12–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.

2001–NM–12–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Luftfartsverket (LFV), which is

the airworthiness authority for Sweden,

notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain Saab

Model SAAB 2000 series airplanes. The

LFV advises that, in one case, it has

been reported that wires to an

emergency pitch trim actuator (EPTA)

mode control relay were wired

incorrectly in production. This

condition, if not corrected, could result

in faulty activation of the EPTA, causing

damage to the elevator front spar and

resulting in reduced structural integrity

of the elevator and a non-functioning

emergency pitch trim system (EPTS).

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Saab has issued Service Bulletin

2000–27–046, dated November 30, 2000,

which describes procedures for

conducting a functional test of the

EPTS, and checking and replacing the

wiring, if necessary. Accomplishment of

the actions specified in the service

bulletin is intended to adequately

address the identified unsafe condition.

The LFV classified this service bulletin

as mandatory and issued Swedish