Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Proposed Rules 62829

(iii) Identification of the particular 

plant or plant part (i.e., fruit, leaf, root, 

entire plant, etc.) and any associated 

plant part proposed for importation into 

the United States; 

(iv) The proposed end use of the 

imported commodity (e.g., propagation, 

consumption, milling, decorative, 

processing, etc.); and 

(v) The months of the year when the 

commodity would be produced, 

harvested, and exported. 

(3) Shipping information.

(i) Detailed information as to the 

projected quantity and weight/volume 

of the proposed importation, broken 

down according to varieties, where 

applicable; and 

(ii) Method of shipping in 

international commerce and under what 

conditions, including type of 

conveyance, and type, size, and capacity 

of packing boxes and/or shipping 

containers. 

(4) Description of pests and diseases 

associated with the commodity. For all 

pests associated with the commodity 

proposed for export to the United States: 

(i) Scientific name (including genus, 

species, and author names) and 

taxonomic classification of arthropods, 

fungi, bacteria, nematodes, virus, 

viroids, mollusks, phytoplasmas, 

spiroplasmas, etc., attacking the crop; 

(ii) Plant part attacked by each pest, 

pest life stages associated with each 

plant part attacked, and location of pest 

(in, on or with commodity); and 

(iii) References. 

(5) Current strategies for risk 

mitigation or management.

(i) Overview of agronomic or 

horticultural management practices 

used in production of commodity, 

including methods of pest risk 

mitigation or control programs; and 

(ii) Identification of parties 

responsible for pest management and 

control. 

(e) Availability of additional 

guidance. Information related to the 

processing of requests to change the 

import regulations contained in this part 

may be found on the APHIS Web site at 

[Address to be added in final rule].

Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of 

October 2004. 

Bill Hawks, 

Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs.

[FR Doc. 04–24150 Filed 10–27–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 932

[Docket No. FV04–932–2 PR] 

Olives Grown in California; 

Redistricting and Reapportionment of 

Producer Membership on the 

California Olive Committee

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This rule invites comments 

on the redefinition of the producer 

districts and reapportionment of each 

district’s membership on the California 

Olive Committee (committee). The 

Federal marketing order for California 

olives (order) regulates the handling of 

canned ripe olives grown in California 

and is administered locally by the 

committee. This rule would reduce the 

number of producer districts in the 

production area from four to two and 

would reapportion the committee 

representation from each district to 

reflect the consolidation. These changes 

would reflect recent shifts in olive 

acreage and producer numbers within 

the production area and would provide 

equitable committee representation from 

each district.

DATES: Comments must be received by 

December 27, 2004.

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, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938, or 

E-mail: moab.docketclerk@usda.gov; or 

Internet: http://www.regulations.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: http//

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurel L. May, Marketing Specialist, 

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, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, 

Washington, DC 20250–0237; telephone: 

(202) 720–2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; telephone (202) 720–

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or E-mail: 

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under Marketing Agreement 

No. 148 and Order No. 932, both as 

amended (7 CFR part 932), regulating 

the handling of olives grown in 

California, hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘order.’’ 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 of Agriculture 

(USDA) 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 proposal 

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 USDA 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. Such 

handler is afforded the opportunity for 

a hearing on the petition. After the 

hearing USDA 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 USDA’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 rule would consolidate the four 

existing producer districts into two 

larger districts. Producer representation 

on the committee would be 

reapportioned accordingly. These 

changes would reflect recent shifts in 

olive acreage and producer numbers 

within the production area and would 

assure equitable committee 

62830 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

representation from each district. This 

action was unanimously recommended 

by the committee at a meeting on July 

8, 2004. 

Section 932.21 of the order defines 

the producer districts as geographical 

areas of the State of California. Section 

932.25 establishes an administrative 

committee of olive handlers and 

producers and provides for the 

allocation of committee membership to 

assure equitable producer 

representation from the districts. 

Section 932.35(k) authorizes the 

redefinition of the producer districts 

and the reapportionment of committee 

membership as needed to reflect shifts 

in olive acreage within the districts and 

area, numbers of growers in the 

districts, and the tonnage produced to 

assure equitable producer 

representation on the committee.

Currently, § 932.121 of the order’s 

administrative rules and regulations 

lists and defines four producer districts 

within the production area. District 1 

includes Glenn, Tehama and Shasta 

Counties. District 2 includes the 

counties of Mono, Mariposa, Merced, 

San Benito, Monterey, and all counties 

south thereof excluding Tulare County. 

District 3 includes the counties of 

Alpine, Tuolumne, Stanislaus, Santa 

Clara, Santa Cruz, and all counties north 

thereof except those in District 1. 

District 4 includes Tulare County. 

Section 932.125 specifies the 

producer representation on the 

committee. Currently, District 1 is 

represented by two producer members 

on the committee. District 2 is 

represented by one producer member. 

District 3 is represented by one 

producer member. District 4 is 

represented by four producer members. 

At its meeting on July 8, 2004, the 

committee recommended redefining the 

producer districts to consolidate the 

four existing districts into two. The 

committee also recommended 

reapportionment of the producer 

membership on the committee to reflect 

the consolidation of the districts. The 

committee believes that redistricting 

and reapportioning the eight producer 

member positions and alternates would 

provide equitable representation 

throughout the production area. The 

committee based this recommendation 

on the current olive acreage and number 

of producers as required under the 

marketing order. 

Total canned ripe olive acreage in the 

production area has declined by 

approximately four percent since 1994. 

Although production acreage in District 

1 has increased by approximately 21 

percent, shifts in varietal preference and 

challenging production conditions have 

led to declining acreages in the other 

districts. Production acreages in 

Districts 2, 3, and 4 have declined by 

approximately 34 percent, 99 percent, 

and 1 percent, respectively. 

The number of producers in the entire 

production area has declined by 

approximately 23 percent since 1994. 

Some of the decline has been caused by 

changes in ownership of productive 

acreage, and some producers have 

stopped growing olives for cannery use. 

While District 1 has lost only two 

percent of its producers since 1994, 

Districts 2, 3, and 4 have lost 49 percent, 

89 percent, and 29 percent, respectively. 

Some districts no longer have enough 

available or eligible producers to fill all 

the member seats currently allocated 

them on the committee. 

Revisions to both the district 

definitions and committee membership 

apportionment were last made in 1987. 

At that time District 4 was created 

because Tulare County represented 

more than 45 percent of the average 

production, number of producers, and 

acreage of the entire production area. 

District 4 now represents approximately 

56 percent of the canned ripe olive 

acreage as well as approximately 51 

percent of the producers in the 

production area. District 4 is 

represented by 50 percent of the 

producer members and alternates on the 

committee. 

Other districts are less equitably 

represented. District 1 currently has 36 

percent of the total acreage in the 

production area and 46 percent of the 

producers, but is represented by only 25 

percent of the committee’s producer 

members and alternates. District 2, with 

nine percent of the acreage and two 

percent of the producers is represented 

by 12.5 percent of the committee 

members. District 3, with less than 1 

percent of both the total acreage and 

number of producers is likewise 

represented by 12.5 percent of the 

committee’s producer members and 

alternates. 

Recent shifts in production acreage as 

well as the decline in producer numbers 

in the districts prompted the committee 

to recommend the consolidation of the 

two northern districts into one producer 

district, and the two southern districts 

into one producer district. The shifts in 

production acreage and the declines in 

producer numbers reflect similar 

changes in the tonnage produced. 

The committee believes that it would 

be easier for each district to provide 

equitable representation on the 

committee if the districts with declining 

acreages and producer numbers were 

combined with districts having higher 

acreages and producer numbers. The 

pool of available producers from which 

to select committee members would 

then be increased for each producer 

district. 

Accordingly, it was proposed that 

Districts 1 and 3 be combined to form 

a new District 1. District 1 would then 

include the counties of Alpine, 

Tuolumne, Stanislaus, Santa Clara, 

Santa Cruz and all other counties north 

thereof. Districts 2 and 4 would be 

combined to form a new District 2, 

which would include the counties of 

Mono, Mariposa, Merced, San Benito, 

Monterey and all other counties south 

thereof. Producer representation on the 

committee would then be reapportioned 

to provide three members (and 

alternates) from District 1 and five 

members (and alternates) from District 

2.

These changes would benefit 

producers by maintaining an equitable 

representation on the committee as to 

production acreage and number of 

producers in each district. Under this 

proposal, District 1, with 36 percent of 

the total production acreage and 47 

percent of the total number of producers 

would be represented by 38 percent of 

the producer members and alternates on 

the committee. District 2, with 64 

percent of the total acreage and 53 

percent of the total number of producers 

would be represented by 62 percent of 

the committee’s producer members and 

alternates. 

Initial 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 rule 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 to 

ensure that small businesses will not be 

unduly or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and the 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 850 

producers of olives in the production 

area and 3 handlers subject to regulation 

under the marketing order. The Small 

Business Administration (13 CFR 

121.601) defines small agricultural 

producers as those with annual receipts 

less than $750,000, and small 

agricultural service firms as those with 

annual receipts less than $5,000,000. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Proposed Rules 62831

Based upon information from the 

committee, the majority of olive 

producers may be classified as small 

entities, but only one of the three 

handlers may be classified as a small 

entity. 

This rule would revise § 932.121 of 

the order’s administrative rules and 

regulations pertaining to producer 

districts, and § 932.125 pertaining to 

producer representation on the 

committee. The changes would decrease 

the number of producer districts from 

four to two and would reapportion 

producer membership on the committee 

to reflect the consolidation. District 1, 

comprising the northern part of the 

production area, would be apportioned 

three producer members (and alternates) 

on the committee. District 2, comprising 

the southern part of the production area, 

would be apportioned five producer 

members (and alternates) on the 

committee. These changes would reflect 

recent shifts in olive acreage and 

producer numbers within the 

production area and would provide 

equitable committee representation from 

each district. The committee 

unanimously recommended these 

changes. 

This rule would consolidate producer 

districts and reallocate producer 

membership on the committee; thus, 

there would be no additional 

anticipated costs to handlers or 

producers. 

The only alternative to these changes 

discussed by the committee was to leave 

the districts and producer membership 

allocation as they currently exist. 

However, the committee believes that 

the recent shifts in acreage and producer 

numbers within the districts and 

production area have made these 

changes necessary to assure equitable 

producer representation from the 

districts. 

This proposed rule would impose no 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on California olive 

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.

In addition, the committee’s meeting 

was widely publicized throughout the 

California olive industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meeting and participate in 

committee deliberations on all issues. 

Like all committee meetings, the July 8, 

2004, meeting was a public meeting and 

all entities, both large and small, were 

able to express views on this issue. 

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 60-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposed rule. All written 

comments timely received will be 

considered before a final determination 

is made on this matter. The proposed 

redistricting and reapportionment 

would coincide with the 2005 

committee selection, which is 

scheduled to take place in the spring of 

2005 for the new term to begin June 1, 

2005.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932

Marketing agreements, Olives, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is proposed to 

be amended as follows:

PART 932—OLIVES GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 932 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. Section 932.121 is revised to read 

as follows:

§ 932.121 Producer districts. 

Pursuant to the authority in 

§ 932.35(k), commencing with the term 

of office beginning June 1, 2005, district 

means any of the following geographical 

areas of the State of California: 

(a) District 1 shall include the 

counties of Alpine, Tuolumne, 

Stanislaus, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and 

all counties north thereof. 

(b) District 2 shall include the 

counties of Mono, Mariposa, Merced, 

San Benito, Monterey and all counties 

south thereof. 

3. Section 932.125 is revised to read 

as follows:

§ 932.125 Producer representation on the 

committee. 

Pursuant to the authority in §§ 932.25 

and 932.35(k), commencing with the 

term of office beginning June 1, 2005, 

representation shall be apportioned as 

follows: 

(a) District 1 shall be represented by 

three producer members and alternates. 

(b) District 2 shall be represented by 

five producer members and alternates.

Dated: October 22, 2004. 

A.J. Yates, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service.

[FR Doc. 04–24089 Filed 10–27–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. PRM–35–17] 

Organization of Agreement States; 

Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice 

of receipt. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is publishing a 

notice of receipt of a petition for 

rulemaking, dated September 3, 2004, 

which was filed with the Commission 

by Stanley Fitch, on behalf of the 

Organization of Agreement States 

(OAS). The petition was docketed by the 

NRC on October 1, 2004, and has been 

assigned Docket No. PRM–35–17. The 

petitioner requests that the NRC amend 

its regulations to specify the minimum 

number of didactic (classroom and 

laboratory) training hours required to 

meet the requirement for training and 

experience to qualify as an authorized 

nuclear pharmacist and an authorized 

user identified in the NRC’s regulations 

on training for uptake, dilution, and 

excretion studies; imaging and 

localization studies; and use of unsealed 

byproduct material for which a written 

directive is required. This notice of 

receipt is being published for 

information only, not for public 

comment.

DATES: This petition for rulemaking was 

docketed on October 1, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The notice of receipt and 

any publicly available documents 

related to this petition may be viewed 

electronically on the public computers 

located at the NRC’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. The PDR reproduction 

contractor will copy documents for a 

fee. Selected documents, including this 

notice of receipt, may be viewed and 

downloaded electronically via the NRC 

rulemaking Web site at http://

ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions 

about our rulemaking Web site to Carol