Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules 26813

Even though the fruit was shorter,

more full-bodied, and heavier during

the 1998–1999 season, handlers were

able to reduce packing costs and to

compete more effectively in the

marketplace. The industry continued to

pack well-filled trays without having to

spend the extra time weighing them.

There was no reduction in the uniform

appearance of fruit packed into trays.

The consensus of the industry that

season was that the absence of tray

weights had no negative impact during

the 1998–1999 season due to the

exceptionally heavy weight of the fruit.

The Committee, at its February 25,

1999, meeting, unanimously

recommended suspending the minimum

net weight requirements for the 1999–

2000 season to evaluate the suspended

requirements during a season when the

fruit shape and density were normal.

This suspension was implemented by a

final rule published on July 29, 1999 (64

FR 41010).

As previously mentioned, the 1999–

2000 crop was approximately three

million tray-equivalents shorter than

estimated due to a severe frost during

the spring of 1999. This shortage of fruit

resulted in limited quantities of fruit

available for evaluation. Because of the

uncharacteristic fruit in the 1998–1999

season and the short crop in the 1999–

2000 season, the Committee voted to

suspend the minimum net weight

requirement for another year of

evaluation. Therefore, at its February 24,

2000, meeting, the Committee once

again unanimously recommended

continuing the suspension of

§ 920.302(a)(4)(iii) for another season,

the 2000–2001 season. This suspension

was implemented by a final rule issued

June 14, 2000 (65 FR 37265) and is in

effect until July 31, 2001.

The 2000–2001 season was normal

and enabled the Committee to conclude

that the suspensions have helped

handlers reduce packing costs and to

compete more effectively in the

marketplace. The Committee and the

Federal-State Inspection Service also

have concluded that removing the

minimum tray weight requirements

would not result in a reduction in

inspection costs as the inspection

process is essentially the same. The

Committee, at its February 28, 2001,

meeting, unanimously recommended

removing paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of

§ 920.302 for the 2001–2002 and all

future seasons. The Committee also

noted that the minimum size

requirement should be maintained on

all kiwifruit regardless of pack style.

These changes address the marketing

and shipping needs of the kiwifruit

industry and are in the interests of

handlers, growers, buyers, and

consumers. The impact of these changes

is expected to be beneficial to all

handlers and growers regardless of size.

The Committee discussed alternatives

to this change, including continuing the

temporary suspensions for another year.

The industry believes that it has had

adequate time to evaluate these changes.

The suspensions helped handlers

reduce packing costs and compete more

effectively in the marketplace without

an adverse affect on quality or

appearance of the fruit. Therefore, the

Committee recommended removal of

§§ 920.155 and 920.302(a)(4)(iii) for the

2001–2002 and future seasons.

This proposed rule would relax

inspection and pack requirements under

the kiwifruit marketing order.

Accordingly, this action would not

impose any additional reporting or

recordkeeping requirements on either

small or large kiwifruit 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.

The Department has not identified

any relevant Federal rules that

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this

proposed rule.

In addition, the Committee’s meeting

was widely publicized throughout the

kiwifruit industry and all interested

persons were invited to attend the

meetings and participate in Committee

deliberations on all issues. Like all

Committee meetings, the February 28,

2001, meeting was a public meeting and

all entities, both large and small, were

able to express their views on this issue.

The majority of the industry are small

entities. 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 place by August 1, 2001,

as the current suspensions expire on

July 31, 2001, and handlers need to

make operational decisions in time for

the 2001–2002 season. All written

comments timely received will be

considered before a final determination

is made on this matter.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 920

Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 920 is proposed to

be amended as follows:

PART 920—KIWIFRUIT GROWN IN

CALIFORNIA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 920 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

§ 920.155 [Removed]

2. In part 920, § 920.155 is removed in

its entirety.

§ 920.302 [Amended]

3. In § 920.302, paragraph (a)(4)(iii) is

removed and paragraphs (a)(4)(iv), (v),

and (vi) are redesignated as paragraphs

(a)(4) (iii), (iv), and (v), respectively.

Dated: May 9, 2001.

Kenneth C. Clayton,

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 01–12140 Filed 5–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 930

[Docket No. FV01–930–4 PR]

Tart Cherries Grown in the States of

Michigan, et al.; Temporary

Suspension of a Provision Regarding a

Continuance Referendum Under the

Tart Cherry Marketing Order

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule requests

comments on the temporary suspension

of an order provision which requires a

continuance referendum to be

conducted on the marketing order for

tart cherries during March 2002. The

proposed suspension would enable the

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA

or Department) to postpone conducting

the continuance referendum until the

completion of amendatory order

proceedings. The Cherry Industry

Administrative Board (Board)

recommended a delay in holding the

continuance referendum to allow the

industry to evaluate the results of any

approved amendments. A continuance

26814 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules

referendum in March of 2003 is

planned.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit written comments

concerning this action. Comments must

be sent to the Docket Clerk, Fruit and

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Room

2525–S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456. Fax: (202) 720–5698 or

E-mail: moab.docketclerk@usda.gov. All

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 the following website:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/

moab.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia A. Petrella or Kenneth G.

Johnson, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, F&V, AMS,

USDA, Suite 2A04, Unit 155, 4700 River

Road, Riverdale, Maryland, 20737,

telephone: (301) 734–5243; Fax: (301)

734–5275; or Anne M. Dec, 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) 720–5698.

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)

720–5698, or E-mail:

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule

is issued under Marketing Order No.

930 (7 CFR part 930) (order) regulating

the handling of tart cherries grown in

the States of Michigan, New York,

Pennsylvania, Oregon, Washington, and

Wisconsin. The 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 is issuing this rule in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This rule 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 date of the entry

of the ruling.

This action would temporarily

suspend the provision in § 930.83(d) of

the order which specifies when a

continuance referendum should be

conducted to determine if producers

and processors favor continuance of the

tart cherry marketing order. This action

was unanimously recommended by the

Committee at its January 25, 2001,

meeting.

Section 930.83(d) of the order

currently provides that the Secretary

shall conduct a referendum within the

month of March every six years after the

order became effective to ascertain

whether continuance of the order is

favored by tart cherry producers and

processors. The order became effective

in September 1996. A continuance

referendum is, therefore, scheduled to

be conducted in March 2002.

Section 930.83(b) authorizes the

Secretary to terminate or suspend the

operation of any or all provisions of this

part whenever the Secretary finds that

such provisions do not tend to

effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

In 1998, the Board recommended

several proposed amendments to the tart

cherry marketing order to improve the

administration of the order and more

accurately reflect how the program is

operated. It also requested that public

hearings be held on the proposed

amendments. The amendatory process

can be lengthy depending on the

complexity of the amendments and the

level of support for the amendments.

Under the applicable rules of practice

(7 CFR part 900), the amendment

process consists of several steps. The

first step is the public hearing at which

evidence (pro and con) is presented on

the recommended amendments. After

the public hearings are completed, a

Recommended Decision, based on the

evidence presented, is issued by the

Department, with a request for written

comments. Next, the Department

considers the evidence of record

including any exceptions to the

Recommended Decision and then issues

a Secretary’s Decision and, if warranted,

a Referendum Order. A Referendum

Order would be issued if the Secretary

determines that the amendments to the

order would tend to effectuate the

declared policy of the Act.

Initially, the Board intended to

proceed with all of its proposed

amendments in a single amendatory

proceeding. However, after discussion

with the Department, the Board agreed

to split its proposed amendments to the

order into two proceedings. The less

complex amendments were handled

first followed by the more complex

amendments. An amendment

referendum for the first series of

amendments was held in January 2001.

The formal rulemaking process for the

second series of amendments, has

begun, and is expected to be completed

in the spring of 2002.

The Board recommended that the

provision requiring the March 2002

continuance referendum be temporarily

suspended to allow the Department to

complete the amendatory proceedings.

The temporary suspension would allow

the Department to postpone the next

continuance referendum for the tart

cherry marketing order until March

2003.

Delaying the continuance referendum

would allow for the completion of the

amendatory proceedings and an

evaluation by the industry an any

approved amendments at least a year

before producers and processors are

asked to vote on continuing the order.

A later continuance referendum should

be a better indicator of the support for

the order.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act and

Effects on Small Businesses

The Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS) has considered the economic

impact of this action on small entities

and has prepared this initial regulatory

flexibility analysis. The Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA) would allow AMS

to certify that regulations do not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

However, as a matter of general policy,

AMS’ Fruit and Vegetable Programs

(Programs) no longer opt for such

certification, but rather perform

regulatory flexibility analyses for any

rulemaking that would generate the

interest of a significant number of small

entities. Performing such analyses shifts

the Programs’ efforts from determining

whether regulatory flexibility analyses

are required to the consideration of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules 26815

regulatory options and economic

impacts.

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 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 40 handlers

of tart cherries who are subject to

regulation under the order and

approximately 900 producers of tart

cherries in the regulated area. Small

agricultural service firms, which

include handlers, 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. The majority of handlers

and producers of tart cherries may be

classified as small entities.

This proposed rule would temporarily

suspend the provision in § 930.83(d) of

the order which specifies the month in

which a continuance referendum should

be conducted to determine if producers

and processors favor the continuance of

the tart cherry marketing order.

Pursuant to this, the next continuance

referendum is scheduled for March

2002. Section 930.83(b) authorizes the

Secretary to terminate or suspend the

operation of any or all of the provisions

of this part whenever the Secretary finds

that such provisions do not tend to

effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

One alternative to this action would

be to continue the status quo. However,

without a postponement of the

continuance referendum, the

Department would have to conduct two

referenda closely together, one for the

second series of amendments and one

for a continuance referendum. This

could be confusing to growers and

processors. Further, growers and

processors would not have had time to

determine how any amendments that

are adopted could affect order

operations and evaluate the results. A

temporary delay in holding the

continuance referendum until March

2003 would allow the amendments to be

evaluated by growers and processors.

Thus, the vote on continuance would be

a more reliable determiner of industry

support for the order.

In compliance with Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

regulations (5 CFR part 1320) which

implement the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the

information collection and

recordkeeping requirements imposed by

this order have been previously

approved by OMB and assigned OMB

Number 0581–0177. This action

imposes no additional reporting or

recordkeeping requirements on either

small or large tart cherry 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.

The Board’s meeting was publicized

and all Board members and alternate

Board members, representing both large

and small entities, were invited to

attend the meeting and participate in

Board deliberations. The Board itself is

composed of 18 members, of which 17

members are growers and handlers and

one represents the public. Also, the

Board has a number of appointed

committees to review certain issues and

make recommendations.

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 the following website:

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 60-day comment period is provided

to allow interested persons to respond

to this proposal. All written comments

timely received will be considered

before a final determination is made on

this matter.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 929

Tart cherries, Marketing agreements,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR Part 930 is proposed to

be amended as follows:

PART 930—TART CHERRIES GROWN

IN THE STATES OF MICHIGAN, NEW

YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON,

UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND

WISCONSIN

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 930 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1–19, 48 Stat. 31, as

amended; 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

§ 930.83 [Amended]

2. In paragraph (d), the sentence ‘‘The

Secretary shall conduct a referendum

within the month of March of every

sixth year after the effective date of this

part to ascertain whether continuation

of this part is favored by the growers

and processors.’’ is suspended effective

March 1 through March 31, 2002.

Dated: May 9, 2001.

Kenneth C. Clayton,

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 01–12139 Filed 5–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NM–383–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A319, A320, and A321 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 Airbus Model A319, A320, and

A321 series airplanes. This proposal

would require modifications of route

segregation between the low voltage

wire bundles of the fuel quantity

indicating system and the high voltage

wire bundles of the ground power

control unit. This action is necessary to

prevent injection of 115 volt alternating

current (VAC) into 28 volt direct current

(VDC) wire bundles, which could result

in high voltage conditions within the

fuel tank and the potential for damage

to equipment, electrical arcing, and fuel

vapor ignition on the ground. This

action is intended to address the

identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 14, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NM–

383–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.