Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 205 / Monday, October 25, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 62179

from the sale of cherries is 

approximately $61,595. In addition, 

based on Cherry Committee records and 

an average 2003 f.o.b. price of $28.00 

per 20-pound container as reported by 

the MNS, 75 percent of the Washington 

cherry handlers ship under $5,000,000 

worth of cherries. In view of the 

foregoing, the majority of Washington 

cherry producers and handlers may be 

classified as small entities. 

This rule continues to decrease the 

assessment rates established for the 

Committees and collected from handlers 

for the 2004–2005 and subsequent fiscal 

periods from $3.00 to $2.50 per ton for 

apricots and from $1.00 to $0.75 per ton 

for sweet cherries. The Apricot 

Committee and the Cherry Committee 

unanimously recommended 2004–2005 

expenditures of $10,594 and $72,297, 

respectively. With the 2004–2005 crop 

estimates of 4,350 tons for apricots and 

112,600 tons for sweet cherries, the 

Committees anticipate assessment 

income of $10,875 and $84,450, 

respectively, which will be adequate to 

cover budgeted expenses for both 

programs. These assessment incomes 

will maintain the Committees’ reserve 

funds at or near the levels authorized by 

the orders of approximately one fiscal 

periods operational expenses (§§ 922.42 

and 923.42).

Both Committees are managed from 

the same office, thus combined major 

expenses recommended by the 

Committees for the 2004–2005 year 

include staff salaries ($50,572), rent and 

maintenance ($6,624), compliance 

($4,740), and Committee travel and 

compensation ($3,200). These budgeted 

expenses are the same as those 

approved for the 2003–2004 fiscal 

period. 

The Committees discussed 

alternatives to this rule, including 

alternative expenditure levels, but 

determined that the recommended 

expenses were reasonable and necessary 

to adequately cover program operations. 

Lower assessment rates were 

considered, but not recommended 

because they would not generate the 

income necessary to administer the 

programs. 

A review of historical information and 

information pertaining to the crop year 

indicates that the producer price for the 

2004–2005 season could range between 

$353 and $357 per ton for Washington 

apricots and between $1,230 and $1,550 

per ton for Washington sweet cherries. 

Therefore, the estimated assessment 

revenue for the 2004–2005 fiscal period 

as a percentage of total producer 

revenue could range between 0.70 and 

0.71 percent for Washington apricots 

and between 0.05 and 0.06 percent for 

Washington sweet cherries. 

This action continues to decrease the 

assessment obligation imposed on 

handlers. Assessments are applied 

uniformly on all handlers, and some of 

the costs may be passed on to 

producers. However, decreasing the 

assessment rates reduces the burden on 

handlers, and may reduce the burden on 

producers. In addition, the Committees’

meetings were widely publicized 

throughout the Washington apricot and 

Washington sweet cherry industries and 

all interested persons were invited to 

attend and participate in the 

Committees’ deliberations on all issues. 

Like all Committee meetings, the May 

17 and May 18, 2004, meetings were 

public meetings and all entities, both 

large and small, were able to express 

views on the issues. 

This action imposes no additional 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

on either small or large Washington 

apricot or Washington sweet 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. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this rule. 

The interim final rule concerning this 

action was published in the Federal 

Register on July, 29, 2004 (69 FR 

45233). Copies of that rule were also 

mailed or sent via facsimile to all 

Committee members. Finally, the 

interim final rule was made available 

through the Internet by USDA and the 

Office of the Federal Register. A 60-day 

comment period was provided for 

interested persons to respond to the 

interim final rule. The comment period 

ended on September 27, 2004. One 

comment was received during that 

period. The commenter questioned the 

understandability of the rule. The 

comment did not address the substance 

of the interim final rule. We believe that 

the rule is clear and understandable. 

Thus, no changes are made as a result 

of this comment. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ama.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. 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, including the 

information and recommendation 

submitted by the Committees and other 

available information, it is hereby found 

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act.

List of Subjects 

7 CFR Part 922 

Apricots, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

7 CFR Part 923 

Cherries, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

PART 922—APRICOTS GROWN IN 

DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN 

WASHINGTON

PART 923—SWEET CHERRIES 

GROWN IN DESIGNATED COUNTIES 

IN WASHINGTON

■ Accordingly, the interim final rule 

amending 7 CFR parts 922 and 923 

which was published at 69 FR 45233 on 

July 29, 2004, is adopted as a final rule 

without change.

Dated: October 19, 2004. 

A.J. Yates, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service.

[FR Doc. 04–23826 Filed 10–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 86–ANE–7; Amendment 39–

13822; AD 2004–21–01] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Hartzell 

Propeller Inc. (Formerly Hartzell 

Propeller Products Division) Model 

HC–B5MP–3( ) /M10282A( ) +6 Five 

Bladed Propellers; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments; correction 

SUMMARY: This document makes a 

correction to Airworthiness Directive 

(AD) 2004–21–01. That AD applies to 

certain Hartzell Propeller Inc. (formerly 

Hartzell Propeller Products Division) 

Model HC–B5MP–3( )/M10282A( )+6 

five bladed propellers. We published 

AD 2004–21–01 in the Federal Register

on October 14, 2004, (69 FR 60952). The 

amendment number in the Amendatory 

Language is incorrect. This document 

62180 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 205 / Monday, October 25, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1 42 U.S.C. 6294. The statute also requires the 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) to develop test 

procedures that measure how much energy the 

appliances use, and to determine the representative 

average cost a consumer pays for the different types 

of energy available.

2Reports for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers are due August 1.

3The Commission’s analysis excluded models 

with energy consumption figures that do not meet 

the current DOE energy conservation standards. See

62 FR 23102 (April 28, 1997).

4See November 19, 2001 (66 FR 57867), 

November 26, 2001 (66 FR 59050), December 10, 

2001 (66 FR 63749), January 29, 2002 (67 FR 4173), 

and November 21, 2003 (68 FR 65631).

corrects that amendment number. In all 

other respects, the original document 

remains the same.

DATES: Effective October 25, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tomaso DiPaolo, Aerospace Engineer, 

Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 2300 

East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 

60018; telephone: (847) 294–7031; fax: 

(847) 294–7834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A final 

rule; request for comments AD, FR Doc. 

04–22728, that applies to certain 

Hartzell Propeller Inc. (formerly Hartzell 

Propeller Products Division) Model HC–

B5MP–3( )/M10282A( )+6 five bladed 

propellers, was published in the Federal 

Register on October 14, 2004, (69 FR 

60952). The following correction is 

needed:

§ 39.13 [Corrected] 

On page 60953, in the third column, 

in the Amendatory Language, in the first 

paragraph, in the fifth line, 

‘‘Amendment 39–XXXXX’’ is corrected 

to read ‘‘Amendment 39–13822’’.

Issued in Burlington, MA, on October 18, 

2004. 

Francis A. Favara, 

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–23815 Filed 10–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 305

Rule Concerning Disclosures 

Regarding Energy Consumption and 

Water Use of Certain Home Appliances 

and Other Products Required Under 

the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (‘‘Appliance Labeling Rule’’)

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) 

announces that the current ranges of 

comparability for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers will 

remain in effect until further notice.

DATES: Effective January 24, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hampton Newsome, Attorney, Division 

of Enforcement, Federal Trade 

Commission, Washington, DC 20580 

(202–326–2889); hnewsome@ftc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Appliance Labeling Rule (‘‘Rule’’) was 

issued by the Commission in 1979, 44 

FR 66466 (November 19, 1979), in 

response to a directive in the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 

(‘‘EPCA’’).1 The Rule covers several 

categories of major household 

appliances including refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.

I. Background 

The Rule requires manufacturers of all 

covered appliances to disclose specific 

energy consumption or efficiency 

information (derived from the DOE test 

procedures) at the point of sale in the 

form of an ‘‘EnergyGuide’’ label, fact 

sheets (for some appliances), and in 

catalogs. The Rule requires 

manufacturers to include, on labels and 

fact sheets, an energy consumption or 

efficiency figure and a ‘‘range of 

comparability.’’ This range shows the 

highest and lowest energy consumption 

or efficiencies for all comparable 

appliance models so consumers can 

compare the energy consumption or 

efficiency of other models similar to the 

labeled model. The Rule also requires 

manufacturers to include, on labels for 

some products, including those that are 

the subject of this notice, a secondary 

energy usage disclosure in the form of 

an estimated annual operating cost 

based on a specified DOE national 

average cost for the fuel the appliance 

uses. 

Section 305.8(b) of the Rule requires 

manufacturers, after filing an initial 

report, to report certain information 

annually to the Commission by 

specified dates for each product type.2

These reports, which are to assist the 

Commission in preparing the ranges of 

comparability, contain the estimated 

annual energy consumption or energy 

efficiency ratings for the appliances 

derived from tests performed pursuant 

to the DOE test procedures. Because 

manufacturers regularly add new 

models to their lines, improve existing 

models, and drop others, the data base 

from which the ranges of comparability 

are calculated is constantly changing. 

To keep the required information on 

labels consistent with these changes, the 

Commission will publish new ranges if 

an analysis of the new information 

indicates that the upper or lower limits 

of the ranges have changed by more 

than 15%. Otherwise, the Commission 

will publish a statement that the prior 

ranges remain in effect for the next year.

II. 2004 Refrigerator Data 

The annual submissions of data for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers have been made and analyzed 

by the Commission. The ranges of 

comparability for the products have not 

changed significantly for these 

products.3 Therefore, the current ranges 

for these products (16 CFR Part 305, 

Appendices A1 through A8 and B1 

through B3) will remain in effect until 

further notice.4

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305

Advertising, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Labeling, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

■ The authority citation for part 305 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6294.

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–23820 Filed 10–24–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 520

Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; 

Praziquantel Tablets

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is amending the 

animal drug regulations to reflect 

approval of a supplemental abbreviated 

new animal drug application (ANADA) 

filed by Phoenix Scientific, Inc. The 

supplemental ANADA provides for use 

of oral praziquantel tablets for the 

removal of certain tapeworm parasites 

in dogs.

DATES: This rule is effective October 25, 

2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lonnie W. Luther, Center for Veterinary 

Medicine (HFV–104), Food and Drug 

Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., 

Rockville, MD 20855, 301–827–8549, email: lonnie.luther@fda.gov.