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 

62832 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Gallagher (301) 415–5905; e-mail 

cag@nrc.gov. 

Publicly available documents created 

or received at the NRC after November 

1, 1999, are available electronically at 

the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html. From this site, the public 

can gain entry into the NRC’s 

Agencywide Document Access and 

Management System (ADAMS), which 

provides text and image files of NRC’s 

public documents. If you do not have 

access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC 

Public Document Room (PDR) Reference 

staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737 

or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules and 

Directives Branch, Division of 

Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Telephone: 301–415–7163 or Toll 

Free 800–368–5642, or e-mail 

mtl@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Petitioner 

The OAS is a nonprofit, voluntary, 

scientific and professional society 

incorporated in the District of Columbia. 

The membership of OAS consists of 

state radiation control directors and staff 

from the 33 Agreement States who are 

responsible for implementation of their 

respective radioactive materials 

programs. The purpose of the OAS is to 

provide a mechanism for these 

Agreement States to work with each 

other and with the NRC on regulatory 

issues associated with their respective 

agreements. Agreement States are those 

states that have entered into an effective 

regulatory discontinuance agreement 

with the NRC under subsection 274b. of 

the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). The role 

of the Agreement State is to regulate 

most types of radioactive material in 

accordance with the compatibility 

requirements of the AEA. 

Discussion 

The petitioner requests that the NRC 

amend its regulations in 10 CFR 35.55, 

10 CFR 35.190, 10 CFR 35.290, and 10 

CFR 35.390, specify the minimum 

number of didactic (classroom and 

laboratory) training hours for the 

authorized nuclear pharmacists and the 

authorized users identified in these 

sections. The NRC revised 10 CFR Part 

35, Medical Use of Byproduct Material, 

on April 24, 2002. The revised training 

and experience requirements in 10 CFR 

35.55, 35.190, 35.290 and 35.390 require 

training and experience to include both 

classroom and laboratory training and 

supervised work experience, but there is 

no specified breakdown in these 

sections of these hours. The petitioner 

states that, in the current regulations, 

minimum numbers of didactic training 

hours for radiation safety training are 

not specified or separated from the total 

training hours. Part 35, Subpart J (which 

was reinserted into the current rule but 

will expire in October 2005), does 

specify a minimum number of 

classroom and laboratory training hours 

and supervised work experience. 

The petitioner believes that the lack of 

clearly defined didactic (i.e., classroom 

and laboratory) training hours for this 

rule weakens the rule’s consistency and 

uniformity. The petitioner further 

believes that need for specified didactic 

training hours is a radiation safety issue 

rather than a ‘‘practice of medicine’’

issue. The petitioner also believes that 

radiation safety for the patient and the 

occupational radiation workers may be 

compromised. The petitioner states that 

a majority of radiation safety principles 

and procedures are learned during this 

classroom and laboratory training. The 

petitioner also asserts that the inclusion 

of a specification for a minimum 

number of hours of classroom and 

laboratory training (‘didactic’ training), 

in §§ 35.55, 35.190, 35.290, and 35.390, 

will increase consistency and 

uniformity of requirements between 

States and make it easier to maintain 

regulations that are consistent with the 

NRC’s designation of requirements for 

training and experiences as 

compatibility category B. 

Conclusion 

The NRC is currently revising the 

training and experience requirements of 

Part 35. Among the issues being 

addressed in the current rulemaking is 

whether a minimum number of didactic 

training hours should be defined and 

specified in §§ 35.55, 35.190, 35.290 and 

35.390. Therefore the NRC will address 

the issues raised in this petition as part 

of the ongoing rulemaking, ‘‘Medical 

Use of Byproduct Material—Recognition 

of Speciality Boards (RIN No. AH19).’’

A proposed rule was published in the 

Federal Register on December 9, 2003 

(68 FR 68549). Because the issues raised 

by this petition are being considered in 

a current rulemaking, NRC is not 

instituting a separate public comment 

period for this action.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd 

day of October 2004.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–24097 Filed 10–27–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71

Docket No. FAA–2003–19053; Airspace 

Docket No. 04–ANM–10

RIN 2120–AA66

Proposed Revision of VOR Federal 

Airway 208

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

modify Federal Airway 208 (V–208) by 

changing the originating point of the 

airway from the Santa Catalina, CA, 

Very High Frequency Omnidirectional 

Range/Tactical Air Navigation 

(VORTAC) to the Ventura, CA, 

VORTAC. The proposed modification 

would extend V–208 by incorporating a 

route segment that air traffic control 

(ATC) frequently assigns to aircraft 

arriving at the Los Angeles, CA, 

terminal area. The proposed change 

would enhance the management of 

aircraft in the Southern California area.

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 13, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to the Docket Management 

System, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001. You must identify FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2004–19053 and 

Airspace Docket No. 04–ANM–10, at the 

beginning of your comments. You may 

also submit comments on the Internet at 

http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken 

McElroy, Airspace and Rules, Office of 

System Operations and Safety, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 

267–8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in this proposed rulemaking 

by submitting such written data, views, 

or arguments, as they may desire. 

Comments that provide the factual basis