Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71753

On August 17, 2004, the Committee 

met and unanimously recommended 

establishing a reporting requirement 

under the order similar to that applied 

under the California Pistachio 

Commission. Because the Commission 

is prohibited from sharing confidential 

handler information, the committee 

recommended that a receipt/assessment 

report be developed for committee use 

and that the receipts information 

already compiled for the Commission be 

attached to the newly developed 

committee form. Thus, handlers would 

not be duplicating their efforts and both 

agencies would receive necessary 

receipts/assessment data. 

The information collected will be 

used only by authorized representatives 

of the USDA, including AMS, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs regional and 

headquarters’ staff, and authorized 

Committee employees. Authorized 

Committee employees are the primary 

users of the information and AMS is the 

secondary user. The name of the form is 

the Administrative Committee for 

Pistachios (ACP)–1; Receipts/

Assessment Report. 

Total Annual Estimated Burden 

The total burden for the information 

collection under the order is as follows: 

Estimate of Burden: 4 minutes per 

response. 

Respondents: Qualified handlers or 

producers. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

20.

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 1. 

Estimated Total Annual Average 

Burden on Respondents): 1 hour and 20 

minutes. 

Comments: Sixty days are provided 

for comments. Comments are invited on: 

(1) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information would have practical 

utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (4) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

Comments should reference OMB No. 

0581–0215 and the marketing order for 

pistachios grown in California, and be 

sent to USDA in care of the Docket Clerk 

at the previously mentioned address. 

All comments received will be available 

for public inspection during regular 

business hours at the same address. All 

responses to this notice on 

informational impacts will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for OMB approval of the above 

described form. All comments will 

become a matter of public record.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 983 

Pistachios, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 983 is proposed to 

be amended as follows:

PART 983—PISTACHIOS GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 983 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. In part 983, a new Subpart—

Assessment Rate and § 983.253 are 

added to read as follows:

Subpart—Assessment Rate

§ 983.253 Assessment rate. 

(a) On and after September 1, 2004, a 

continuing assessment rate of $0.0014 

per pound of assessed weight pistachios 

is established for California Pistachios. 

The assessment obligation of each 

handler would be computed by 

applying the assessment rate to the 

assessed weight computed pursuant to 

§ 983.6. 

(b) For the 2004–05 fiscal period each 

handler who receives pistachios for 

processing shall furnish the Receipts/

Assessment Report to the Committee 

and pay all due assessments to the 

Committee by March 15, 2005. For 

subsequent fiscal periods, each handler 

who receives pistachios for processing 

shall furnish the Receipts/Assessment 

Report and pay all due assessments to 

the Committee by December 15 of the 

applicable fiscal period.

Dated: December 7, 2004. 

A.J. Yates, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service.

[FR Doc. 04–27157 Filed 12–7–04; 2:54 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 989 

[Docket No. FV05–989–1 PR] 

Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown 

in California; Increased Assessment 

Rate

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This rule would increase the 

assessment rate established for the 

Raisin Administrative Committee 

(Committee) for the 2004–05 and 

subsequent crop years from $8.00 to 

$11.00 per ton of free tonnage raisins 

acquired by handlers, and reserve 

tonnage raisins released or sold to 

handlers for use in free tonnage outlets. 

The Committee locally administers the 

Federal marketing order which regulates 

the handling of raisins produced from 

grapes grown in California (order). 

Authorization to assess raisin handlers 

enables the Committee to incur 

expenses that are reasonable and 

necessary to administer the program. 

The crop year runs from August 1 

through July 31. The 2004–05 crop is 

smaller than normal, and no volume 

regulation will be implemented this 

year. As a result, some expenses funded 

by handler assessments will increase. 

The $8.00 per ton assessment rate will 

not generate enough revenue to cover 

expenses. The $11.00 per ton 

assessment would remain in effect 

indefinitely unless modified, 

suspended, or terminated.

DATES: Comments must be received by 

December 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this rule. 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.

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

71754 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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 

and Order No. 989 (7 CFR part 989), 

both as amended, regulating the 

handling of raisins produced from 

grapes 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. Under the marketing order now 

in effect, California raisin handlers are 

subject to assessments. Funds to 

administer the order are derived from 

such assessments. It is intended that the 

assessment rate as proposed herein 

would be applicable to all assessable 

raisins beginning on August 1, 2004, 

and continue until amended, 

suspended, or terminated. 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 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 increase the 

assessment rate established under the 

order for the 2004–05 and subsequent 

crop years from $8.00 to $11.00 per ton 

of free tonnage raisins acquired by 

handlers, and reserve tonnage raisins 

released or sold to handlers for use in 

free tonnage outlets. Authorization to 

assess raisin handlers enables the 

Committee to incur expenses that are 

reasonable and necessary to administer 

the program. The 2004–05 crop is 

smaller than normal, and no volume 

regulation will be implemented this 

year. As a result, some expenses funded 

by handler assessments will increase. 

The $8.00 per ton assessment rate will 

not generate enough revenue to cover 

expenses. This action was 

recommended by the Committee at a 

meeting on October 5, 2004. 

Sections 989.79 and 989.80, 

respectively, of the order provide 

authority for the Committee, with the 

approval of USDA, to formulate an 

annual budget of expenses and collect 

assessments from handlers to administer 

the program. The members of the 

Committee are producers and handlers 

of California raisins. They are familiar 

with the Committee’s needs and with 

the costs of goods and services in their 

local area and are thus in a position to 

formulate an appropriate budget and 

assessment rate. The assessment rate is 

formulated and discussed in a public 

meeting. Thus, all directly affected 

persons have an opportunity to 

participate and provide input.

Section 989.79 also provides authority 

for the Committee to formulate an 

annual budget of expenses likely to be 

incurred during the crop year in 

connection with reserve raisins held for 

the account of the Committee. A certain 

percentage of each year’s raisin crop 

may be held in a reserve pool during 

years when volume regulation is 

implemented to help stabilize raisin 

supplies and prices. The remaining 

‘‘free’’ percentage may be sold by 

handlers to any market. Reserve raisins 

are disposed of through various 

programs authorized under the order. 

Reserve pool expenses are deducted 

from proceeds obtained from the sale of 

reserve raisins. Net proceeds are 

returned to the pool’s equity holders, 

primarily producers. 

When volume regulation is in effect, 

an administrative budget funded by 

handler assessments is developed, and a 

reserve pool budget funded by the 

current year’s reserve pool is developed. 

Committee costs are apportioned 

between the two revenue sources. When 

volume regulation is not implemented, 

the Committee develops an 

administrative budget funded solely 

from handler assessments. 

When the Committee met on August 

12, 2004, it recommended two budget 

scenarios for the 2004–2005 crop year to 

accommodate both situations, because it 

was not known at that time if volume 

regulation would be implemented. At 

that time, it appeared the crop may be 

short, but the initial crop estimate 

would not be available until a later date. 

The first budget scenario 

recommended was premised on the 

assumption that volume regulation 

would be implemented. Under this 

scenario, the Committee recommended 

an administrative budget of expenses 

totaling $2,200,000 and a reserve pool 

budget of $2,839,225. The assessment 

rate would remain unchanged at $8.00 

per ton. This assessment rate applied to 

estimated acquisitions of raisins by 

handlers of 275,000 tons would provide 

adequate revenue to fund the 

administrative budget. 

The second budget scenario 

recommended was based on the premise 

that volume regulation would not be 

implemented for the 2004–05 season. 

Under this scenario, various expenses 

typically split between the reserve pool 

budget and the administrative budget 

would be funded by the administrative 

budget. In addition, some expense 

categories would be eliminated, some 

reduced, and another would be 

allocated to the existing 2003–04 reserve 

pool budget. The administrative budget 

would increase to $3,025,000, thus 

necessitating an increase in the 

assessment rate to $11.00 per ton.

The Committee met on October 5, 

2004, and determined that no volume 

regulation for the 2004–05 crop year 

was warranted because of a short crop. 

The crop estimate for Natural (sundried) Seedless raisins, the major raisin 

variety produced, was 199,344 tons. If 

realized, this would be the smallest crop 

in over 20 years. Production of other 

varietal types was also estimated to be 

relatively low. The lack of volume 

regulation triggered implementation of 

the Committee’s recommendation for an 

administrative budget of $3,025,000 and 

an increased assessment rate from $8.00 

per ton to $11.00 per ton. 

In developing this budget, the 

Committee reviewed and identified 

those expenses that were considered 

reasonable and necessary to continue 

operation of the raisin marketing order 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2004 / Proposed Rules 71755

program. Several costs normally 

associated with administering a reserve 

pool would be eliminated, such as 

insurance coverage ($400,000), costs for 

repairing reserve storage bins 

($300,000), raisin hauling costs 

($65,000), auditing fees ($20,000), and 

bank charges ($20,000). Other costs 

usually split between the administrative 

and reserve pool budgets would also be 

eliminated, such as production of 

industry brochures ($20,000) and 

research and communication activities 

($70,000). It was determined that these 

activities, while desirable, could be 

eliminated without adversely impacting 

Committee operations. 

Other expenses traditionally split 

between the reserve and administrative 

budgets would be reduced. For example, 

total compliance activity costs budgeted 

at $500,000 ($250,000 allocated to the 

reserve budget and $250,000 allocated 

to the administrative budget) would be 

reduced to $320,000, to be funded from 

the administrative budget. Purchase of 

equipment would also be reduced, from 

a combined amount of $50,000, to 

$25,000 funded from the administrative 

budget. 

Other costs usually split between the 

reserve pool and administrative budgets 

that would be funded by the 

administrative budget include general 

overhead costs such as salaries, taxes, 

retirement and other benefits, insurance, 

rent, office supplies, and Committee 

travel. These costs remain the same 

regardless of whether there is a reserve 

pool, as they are necessary to continue 

administration of the program. Finally, 

$836,000 in costs associated with 

administering export programs would 

be funded by the existing 2003–04 

reserve pool budget, and $536,000 

would be funded under administrative 

budget for 2004–05.

A direct comparison of expenses 

between the recommended 2004–05 

budget and the 2003–04 budget is 

difficult because the 2004–05 budget is 

only administrative, whereas in 2003–

04 there was an administrative and a 

reserve pool budget. In total, the 2004–

05 recommended administrative budget 

of $3,025,000 compares to the 2003–04 

administrative budget of $2,000,000. 

However, the $3,025,000 administrative 

budget is $1,609,800 less than the 

combined 2003–04 administrative and 

reserve pool budgets of $4,634,800. 

Major expense categories include 

$1,000,000 for salaries, $536,000 for 

export program activities 

(administrative budget only), $320,000 

for compliance activities, $150,000 for 

group health insurance, $110,000 for 

rent, $120,000 for Committee member 

and staff travel, and $110,000 for 

computer software and programming. 

A continuous assessment rate of $8.00 

per ton has been in effect since the 

2002–03 crop year. For the 2004–05 

crop year, the Committee recommended 

increasing the assessment rate to $11.00 

per ton of assessable raisins to cover 

recommended administrative 

expenditures of $3,025,000. The 

recommended $11.00 per ton 

assessment rate was derived by dividing 

the $3,025,000 in anticipated expenses 

by an estimated 275,000 tons of 

assessable raisins. Sufficient income 

should be generated at the higher 

assessment rate for the Committee to 

meet its anticipated expenses. Pursuant 

to § 989.81(a) of the order, any 

unexpended assessment funds from the 

crop year must be credited or refunded 

to the handlers from whom collected. 

The proposed assessment rate would 

continue in effect indefinitely unless 

modified, suspended, or terminated by 

USDA upon recommendation and other 

information submitted by the 

Committee or other available 

information. 

Although this assessment rate would 

be in effect for an indefinite period, the 

Committee would continue to meet 

prior to or during each crop year to 

recommend a budget of expenses and 

consider recommendations for 

modification of the assessment rate. The 

dates and times of Committee meetings 

are available from the Committee or 

USDA. Committee meetings are open to 

the public and interested persons may 

express their views at these meetings. 

USDA would evaluate Committee 

recommendations and other available 

information to determine whether 

modification of the assessment rate is 

needed. Further rulemaking would be 

undertaken as necessary. The 

Committee’s 2004–05 budget and those 

for subsequent crop years would be 

reviewed and, as appropriate, approved 

by USDA.

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 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 20 handlers 

of California raisins who are subject to 

regulation under the order and 

approximately 4,500 raisin producers in 

the regulated area. Small agricultural 

firms are defined by the Small Business 

Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as 

those having annual receipts of less that 

$5,000,000, and small agricultural 

producers are defined as those having 

annual receipts of less than $750,000. 

Thirteen of the 20 handlers subject to 

regulation have annual sales estimated 

to be at least $5,000,000, and the 

remaining 7 handlers have sales less 

than $5,000,000. No more than 7 

handlers, and a majority of producers, of 

California raisins may be classified as 

small entities. 

This rule would increase the 

assessment rate established for the 

Committee and collected from handlers 

for the 2004–05 and subsequent crop 

years from $8.00 to $11.00 per ton of 

assessable raisins acquired by handlers. 

The 2004–05 crop is estimated to be 

smaller than normal, and as a result, the 

Committee determined that volume 

regulation for the season was not 

warranted. 

When volume regulation is in effect, 

the Committee establishes two budgets; 

one for administrative expenses funded 

by handler assessments, and one for 

expenses incurred in connection with a 

reserve pool. Many of the Committee 

costs are split between the reserve pool 

budget and the administrative budget. 

When no volume regulation is in 

effect during a crop year, there is no 

reserve pool budget for that crop year. 

However, the Committee continues to 

incur fixed costs associated with 

administering the marketing order 

program. Therefore, the Committee 

reviewed and identified the expenses 

that would be reasonable and necessary 

to continue program operations without 

a reserve pool in effect during the 2004–

05 crop year. Operating expenses 

typically split between the 

administrative and reserve pool budgets 

were allocated to the administrative 

budget, some expenses were reduced, 

some expenses were eliminated, and 

some export program activity expenses 

were allocated to the existing 2003–04 

reserve pool budget. 

The resulting administrative budget 

recommended includes expenses 

totaling $3,025,000 for the 2004–05 crop 

year. While this is an increase from the 

2003–04 administrative budget of 

$2,000,000, it represents a decrease in 

the 2003–04 combined administrative 

71756 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

and reserve pool budgets which totaled 

$4,634,800. 

Because the 2004–05 administrative 

budget funded some of the costs 

typically allocated to a reserve budget, 

a direct comparison to 2003–04 

administrative costs would be difficult. 

A comparison of 2004–05 recommended 

administrative expenditures to 

combined 2003–04 administrative and 

reserve pool budget expenditures 

therefore follows: 2004–05 salaries, 

$1,000,000 (2003–04 combined 

budgeted expenditures for salaries was 

$1,000,000); $456,000 for export 

program activities, ($1,246,000); 

$320,000 for compliance activities, 

($320,000); $150,000 for group health 

insurance, ($165,000); $110,000 for rent, 

($106,000); $120,000 for Committee 

member and staff travel, ($120,000); and 

$110,000 for computer software and 

programming, ($107,800).

With anticipated assessable tonnage at 

275,000 tons, sufficient income should 

be generated at the $11.00 per ton 

assessment rate to meet expenses. 

Pursuant to § 989.81(a) of the order, any 

unexpended assessment funds from the 

crop year must be credited or refunded 

to the handlers from whom collected. 

The industry considered an 

alternative assessment rate and budget 

prior to arriving at the $11.00 per ton 

and $3,025,000 administrative budget 

recommendation. The Committee’s 

Audit Subcommittee met on July 1, 

2004, to review preliminary budget 

information. The subcommittee was 

aware that the 2004–05 crop may be 

short and no volume regulation may be 

implemented. The subcommittee thus 

developed two budgets and assessment 

rates to accommodate a scenario with 

volume regulation and another scenario 

with no volume regulation. If volume 

regulation was to be implemented, the 

assessment rate would remain at $8.00 

per ton. If volume regulation was not 

implemented, costs typically allocated 

to a reserve pool budget would be 

absorbed by the administrative budget, 

thus necessitating an increased 

assessment rate to $11.00 per ton. The 

Committee approved these budget and 

assessment recommendations on August 

12, 2004. 

The Committee met again on October 

5, 2004, and determined that volume 

regulation was not warranted for the 

season. This triggered implementation 

of the Committee’s recommendation for 

an administrative budget of $3,025,000 

and assessment rate of $11.00 per ton. 

A review of statistical data on the 

California raisin industry indicates that 

assessment revenue has consistently 

been less than one percent of grower 

revenue in recent years. A grower price 

of a minimum of $1,210 per ton for the 

2004–05 crop raisins has been 

announced by the Raisin Bargaining 

Association. If this price is realized, 

assessment revenue would continue to 

be less than one percent of grower 

revenue in the 2004–05 crop year, even 

with the increased assessment rate. 

Regarding the impact of this action on 

affected entities, this action would 

increase the assessment obligation 

imposed on handlers. While 

assessments impose some additional 

costs on handlers, the costs are minimal 

and uniform on all handlers. Some of 

the additional costs may be passed on 

to producers. However, these costs 

would be offset by the benefits derived 

by the operation of the marketing order.

Additionally, the Audit 

Subcommittee and full Committee 

meetings held on July 1, 2004, and 

August 12, 2004, respectively, where 

this action was deliberated were public 

meetings widely publicized throughout 

the California raisin industry. All 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meetings and participate in 

the industry’s deliberations. Finally, all 

interested persons are invited to submit 

information on the regulatory and 

informational impacts of this action on 

small businesses. 

This proposed rule would impose no 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on either small or large 

raisin 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. Finally, USDA has not 

identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 

this rule. 

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 10-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposed rule. Ten days is 

deemed appropriate because a final 

decision on increasing the rate as 

proposed should be made as soon as 

possible so the Committee can begin 

billing handlers for assessments at the 

higher rate. The Committee usually 

begins assessment billings in November.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 989 

Grapes, Marketing agreements, 

Raisins, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 989 is proposed to 

be amended as follows:

PART 989—RAISINS PRODUCED 

FROM GRAPES GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 989 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. Section 989.347 is revised to read 

as follows:

§ 989.347 Assessment rate. 

On and after August 1, 2004, an 

assessment rate of $11.00 per ton is 

established for assessable raisins 

produced from grapes grown in 

California.

Dated: December 7, 2004. 

A.J. Yates, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service.

[FR Doc. 04–27162 Filed 12–9–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA–2004–19237; Airspace 

Docket No. 04–AGL–19] 

Proposed Establishment of Class E 

Airspace; Tracy, MN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document proposed to 

establish Class E airspace at Tracy, MN. 

Standard Instrument Approach 

Procedures have been developed for 

Tracy Municipal Airport, Tracy, MN. 

Controlled airspace extending upward 

from 700 feet or more above the surface 

of the earth is needed to contain aircraft 

executing these approaches. This action 

would establish an area of controlled 

airspace for Tracy Municipal Airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 1, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the 

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 the 

Docket Number FAA–2004–19237/

Airspace Docket No. 04–AGL–19, at the 

beginning of your comments. You may 

also submit comments on the internet at 

http://dms.dot.gov. You may review the 

public docket containing the proposal,