Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 76385

forms are periodically reviewed to 

reduce information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. In addition, USDA has 

not identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 

this rule. 

The Committee’s meeting was widely 

publicized throughout the Idaho-Eastern 

Oregon onion industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meeting and participate in 

Committee deliberations. Like all 

Committee meetings, the April 1, 2004, 

meeting was a public meeting and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 

to express their views on this issue. 

Also, as indicated earlier, the 

subcommittee appointed to consider 

this matter met on February 25, 2004, 

and discussed this issue in detail. That 

meeting was also a public meeting and 

both large and small entities were able 

to participate and express their views. 

An interim final rule concerning this 

action was published in the Federal 

Register on September 22, 2004. Copies 

of the rule were made available by the 

Committee’s staff to all producers, 

handlers, and interested persons. In 

addition, the rule was made available 

though the Internet by USDA and the 

Office of the Federal Register. That rule 

provided for a 60-day comment period 

which ended November 22, 2004. Two 

comments were received during that 

period. Neither comment addressed the 

substance of the interim final rule; 

therefore, no changes are made as a 

result of these comments. 

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. 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, including the 

Committee’s recommendation, and 

other information, it is found that 

finalizing the interim final rule, without 

change, as published in the Federal 

Register (69 FR 56667) will tend to 

effectuate the declared policy of the Act. 

In accordance with section 8e of the 

Act, the United States Trade 

Representative has concurred with the 

finalization of this rule.

List of Subjects 

7 CFR Part 958

Marketing agreements, Onions, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

7 CFR Part 980

Food grades and standards, Imports, 

Marketing agreements, Onions, Potatoes, 

Tomatoes.

PART 958—ONIONS GROWN IN 

CERTAIN DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN 

IDAHO, AND MALHEUR COUNTY, 

OREGON

PART 980—VEGETABLES; IMPORT 

REGULATIONS

■ Accordingly, the interim final rule 

amending 7 CFR parts 958 and 980 

which was published at 69 FR 56667 on 

September 22, 2004, is adopted as a final 

rule without change.

Dated: December 15, 2004. 

A.J. Yates, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service.

[FR Doc. 04–27909 Filed 12–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–U

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 982

[Docket No. FV05–982–1 IFR] 

Hazelnuts Grown in Oregon and 

Washington; Establishment of Final 

Free and Restricted Percentages for 

the 2004–2005 Marketing Year

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA.

ACTION: Interim final rule with request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: This rule establishes final free 

and restricted percentages for domestic 

inshell hazelnuts for the 2004–2005 

marketing year under the Federal 

marketing order for hazelnuts grown in 

Oregon and Washington. The final free 

and restricted percentages are 6.4921 

and 93.5079 percent, respectively. The 

percentages allocate the quantity of 

domestically produced hazelnuts which 

may be marketed in the domestic inshell 

market (free) and the quantity of 

domestically produced hazelnuts that 

must be disposed of in outlets approved 

by the Board (restricted). Volume 

regulation is intended to stabilize the 

supply of domestic inshell hazelnuts to 

meet the limited domestic demand for 

such hazelnuts with the goal of 

providing producers with reasonable 

returns. This rule was recommended 

unanimously by the Hazelnut Marketing 

Board (Board), which is the agency 

responsible for local administration of 

the marketing order.

DATES: Effective Date: December 22, 

2004. This interim final rule applies to 

all 2004–2005 marketing year restricted 

hazelnuts until they are properly 

disposed of in accordance with 

marketing order requirements. 

Comments received by February 22, 

2005 will be considered prior to 

issuance of a final rule.

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; 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 available for public inspection in 

the Office of the Docket Clerk during 

regular business hours, or can viewed 

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

moab.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barry Broadbent, Northwest Marketing 

Field Office, Marketing Order 

Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1220 

SW., Third Avenue, Suite 385, Portland, 

OR 97204; Telephone: (503) 326–2724, 

Fax: (503) 326–7440; or George J. 

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 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. 115 and Marketing Order No. 982, 

both as amended (7 CFR Part 982), 

regulating the handling of hazelnuts 

grown in Oregon and Washington, 

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. 

76386 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. It is intended that this action 

apply to all merchantable hazelnuts 

handled during the 2004–2005 

marketing year (July 1, 2004, through 

June 30, 2005). 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. A 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 establishes marketing 

percentages which allocate the quantity 

of inshell hazelnuts that may be 

marketed in domestic markets. The 

Board is required to meet prior to 

September 20 of each marketing year to 

compute its marketing policy for that 

year, and compute and announce an 

inshell trade demand if it determines 

that volume regulations would tend to 

effectuate the declared policy of the Act. 

At the same time, the Board computes 

and announces preliminary free and 

restricted percentages for that marketing 

year. 

The inshell trade demand is the 

amount of inshell hazelnuts that 

handlers may ship to the domestic 

market throughout the marketing 

season. The order specifies that the 

inshell trade demand be computed by 

averaging the preceding three ‘‘normal’’

years’ trade acquisitions of inshell 

hazelnuts. The Board may increase the 

computed inshell trade demand by up 

to 25 percent, if market conditions 

warrant an increase. The Board may also 

modify the inshell trade demand to 

account for abnormalities due to crop or 

marketing conditions. The Board’s 

authority to recommend volume 

regulations and the computations used 

to determine the percentages are 

specified in § 982.40 of the order. 

Volume regulation under the order 

utilizes free and restricted percentages 

to allocate available hazelnuts which 

may be marketed in domestic inshell 

markets (free) and hazelnuts which 

must be exported, shelled, or otherwise 

disposed of by handlers (restricted). 

Prior to September 20 of each marketing 

year, the Board must compute and 

announce preliminary free and 

restricted percentages. The preliminary 

free percentage releases 80 percent of 

the adjusted inshell trade demand to the 

domestic market. The purpose of 

releasing only 80 percent of the inshell 

trade demand under the preliminary 

percentage is to guard against an 

underestimate of crop size. The 

preliminary free percentage is expressed 

as a percentage of the total supply 

subject to regulation (supply) and is 

based on the preliminary crop estimate. 

On August 24, 2004, the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 

released an estimate of 2004 hazelnut 

production for the Oregon and 

Washington area at 44,000 dry orchardrun tons. On August 26, 2004, the Board 

met and estimated total available supply 

for the 2004 crop year at 44,954 tons. 

The Board arrived at this estimate by 

using the crop estimate compiled by 

NASS (44,000 tons) and then adjusting 

that estimate to account for 

disappearance and carryin. The order 

requires the Board to reduce the 

estimate by the average disappearance 

over the preceding three years (1,584 

tons) and to increase it by the amount 

of undeclared carryin from previous 

years’ production (2,538 tons.)

Disappearance is the difference 

between the estimated orchard-run 

production and the actual supply of 

merchantable product available for sale 

by handlers. Disappearance can consist 

of (1) unharvested hazelnuts, (2) culled 

product (nuts that are delivered to 

handlers but later discarded), (3) 

product used on the farm, sold locally, 

or otherwise disposed of by producers, 

and (4) statistical error in the orchardrun production estimate. 

The Board computed the adjusted 

inshell trade demand of 2,064 tons by 

taking the average of the past three 

years’ sales (2,952 tons) and reducing it 

by the declared carry-in from last year’s 

crop (888 tons). Declared carry-in is 

product regulated under the order 

during a preceding marketing year but 

held in inventory for future sale. 

Undeclared carry-in is product that was 

produced in a previous marketing year 

but was not subject to regulation at that 

time. Undeclared carry-in is subject to 

regulation under the order and is 

accounted for as such by the Board. 

The Board computed and announced 

preliminary free and restricted 

percentages of 3.6726 percent and 

96.3274 percent, respectively, at its 

August 26, 2004, meeting. The Board 

computed the preliminary free 

percentage by multiplying the adjusted 

trade demand by 80 percent and 

dividing the result by the adjusted crop 

estimate (2,064 tons × 80 percent/44,954 

tons = 3.6726 percent). The preliminary 

free percentage thus initially released 

1,651 tons of hazelnuts from the 2004 

supply for domestic inshell use, and the 

preliminary restricted percentage 

withheld 43,303 tons for the export and 

shelled (kernel) markets. 

Under the order, the Board must meet 

again on or before November 15 to 

recommend interim final and final 

percentages. The Board uses current 

crop estimates to calculate interim final 

and final percentages. The interim final 

percentages are calculated in the same 

way as the preliminary percentages and 

release the remaining 20 percent (to 

total 100 percent of the inshell trade 

demand) previously computed by the 

Board. Final free and restricted 

percentages may release up to an 

additional 15 percent of the average of 

the preceding three years’ trade 

acquisitions to provide an adequate 

carryover into the following season (i.e.,

desirable carryout). The order requires 

that the final free and restricted 

percentages shall be effective 30 days 

prior to the end of the marketing year, 

or earlier, if recommended by the Board 

and approved by USDA. Revisions in 

the marketing policy can be made until 

February 15 of each marketing year, but 

the inshell trade demand can only be 

revised upward, consistent with 

§ 982.40(e). 

The Board met on November 3, 2004, 

and reviewed and approved an 

amended marketing policy and 

recommended the establishment of final 

free and restricted percentages. The 

NASS crop production estimate was 

44,000 tons. However, based upon 

industry information, the Board reduced 

the estimate to 37,425 tons. The Board 

also decided that market conditions 

were such that the immediate release of 

an additional 15 percent for desirable 

carryout would not adversely affect the 

2004–2005 domestic inshell market. No 

interim final free and restricted 

percentages were recommended. The 

Board recommended final free and 

restricted percentages of 6.4921 and 

93.5079 percent, respectively. The final 

free percentage releases 2,507 tons of 

inshell hazelnuts from the 2004 supply 

for domestic use.

The final marketing percentages are 

based on the Board’s final production 

estimate (which is lower than its initial 

estimate) and the following supply and 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 76387

demand information for the 2004–2005 

marketing year:

Tons 

Total Available Supply:

(1) Production forecast (crop estimate) ........................................................................................................................................ 37,425

(2) Less disappearance (three year average; 3.60 percent of Item 1) ........................................................................................ 1,347

(3) Merchantable production (Item 1 minus Item 2) .................................................................................................................... 36,078

(4) Plus undeclared carryin as of July 1, 2004 (subject to regulation) ........................................................................................ 2,538

(5) Available supply subject to regulation (Item 3 plus Item 4) ................................................................................................... 38,616

Inshell Trade Demand:

(6) Average trade acquisitions of inshell hazelnuts (three prior years domestic sales) .............................................................. 2,952

(7) Less declared carryin as of July 1, 2004 (not subject to 2004–2005 regulation) .................................................................. 888

(8) Adjusted inshell trade demand (Item 6 minus Item 7) ........................................................................................................... 2,064

(9) Desirable carryout on August 31, 2005 (15 percent of Item 6) ............................................................................................. 443

(10) Adjusted inshell trade demand plus desirable carryout (Item 8 plus Item 9) ...................................................................... 2,507

Free Restricted 

Percentages:

(11) Final percentages (Item 10 divided by Item 5) × 100 .............................................................................. 6.4921 93.5079

(12) Final free tonnage (Item 10) ..................................................................................................................... 2,507 ........................

(13) Final restricted tonnage (Item 5 minus Item 10) ...................................................................................... ........................ 36,109

In addition to complying with the 

provisions of the order, the Board also 

considered USDA’s 1982 ‘‘Guidelines 

for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop 

Marketing Orders’’ (Guidelines) when 

making its computations in the 

marketing policy. This volume control 

regulation provides a method to 

collectively limit the supply of inshell 

hazelnuts available for sale in domestic 

markets. The Guidelines provide that 

the domestic inshell market has 

available a quantity equal to 110 percent 

of prior years’ shipments before 

allocating supplies for the export 

inshell, export kernel, and domestic 

kernel markets. This provides for 

plentiful supplies for consumers and for 

market expansion, while retaining the 

mechanism for dealing with oversupply 

situations. The established final 

percentages will make available an 

additional 443 tons for desirable 

carryout. The total free supply for the 

2004–2005 marketing year is 3,395 tons 

of hazelnuts, which is the sum of the 

final trade demand of 2,952 tons and the 

443 ton desirable carryout. This amount 

is 115 percent of prior years’ sales and 

exceeds the goal of the Guidelines. 

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 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. 

Small agricultural producers are 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as 

those having annual receipts of less than 

$750,000, and small agricultural service 

firms are defined as those having annual 

receipts of less than $5,000,000. There 

are approximately 750 producers of 

hazelnuts in the production area and 

approximately 18 handlers subject to 

regulation under the order. Average 

annual hazelnut revenue per producer is 

$38,888. This is computed by dividing 

NASS figures for the average value of 

production for 2002 and 2003 

($29,166,000) by the number of 

producers. The level of sales of other 

crops by hazelnut producers is not 

known. In addition, based on Board 

records, about 89 percent of the 

handlers ship under $5,000,000 worth 

of hazelnuts on an annual basis. In view 

of the foregoing, it can be concluded 

that the majority of hazelnut producers 

and handlers may be classified as small 

entities. 

Board meetings are widely publicized 

in advance of the meetings and are held 

in a location central to the production 

area. The meetings are open to all 

industry members and other interested 

persons who are encouraged to 

participate in the deliberations and 

voice their opinions on topics under 

discussion. Thus, Board 

recommendations can be considered to 

represent the interests of small business 

entities in the industry.

Currently, U.S. hazelnut production is 

allocated among three main market 

outlets: domestic inshell, export inshell, 

and kernel markets. Handlers and 

growers receive the highest return for 

sales in the domestic inshell market. 

They receive less for product going to 

export inshell, and the least for kernels. 

Based on Board records of average 

shipments for 1994–2003, the 

percentage going to each of these 

markets was 11 percent (domestic 

inshell), 43 percent (export inshell), and 

34 percent (kernels). Other minor 

market outlets in total make up the 

remaining 12 percent. 

The inshell hazelnut market can be 

characterized as having limited and 

inelastic demand with a very short 

primary marketing period. On average, 

78 percent of domestic inshell hazelnut 

shipments occur between October 1 and 

November 30, primarily to supply 

holiday nut demand. The inshell market 

is, therefore, prone to oversupply and 

low grower prices in the absence of 

supply restrictions. Volume regulation 

provides a method for the U.S. hazelnut 

industry to limit the supply of domestic 

inshell hazelnuts available for sale in 

the continental U.S. and to prevent 

oversupplied market conditions. 

Many years of marketing experience 

led to the development of the current 

volume control procedures. These 

procedures have helped the industry 

solve its marketing problems by keeping 

inshell supplies in balance with 

domestic needs. Volume controls ensure 

that the domestic inshell market is fully 

supplied while protecting the market 

from the negative effects of oversupply. 

76388 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

The relatively high level of 

production in 2004 and the large carryin 

from previous year’s production were 

key market factors leading to the 

relatively low 6.4921 percent final free 

percentage. Hazelnut production was 

originally estimated by NASS to be 

44,000 tons, which would have made it 

the third largest crop on record. The 

Board revised the forecast to 37,425 tons 

after harvest was completed, a level that 

is still 22 percent above the 10 year 

average. Even if carryin had been zero, 

the amount of production that handlers 

typically ship into the domestic inshell 

market (i.e., average trade acquisitions 

of 2,952 tons) equals only about 8.1 

percent of supply (the 36,078 tons 

subject to regulation). 

Although the domestic inshell market 

is a relatively small proportion of total 

sales (11 percent of total shipments), it 

remains a profitable market segment. 

The volume control provisions of the 

marketing order are designed to avoid 

oversupplying this particular market 

segment, because that would likely lead 

to substantially lower grower prices. 

The other market segments, export 

inshell and kernels, are expected to 

continue to provide good outlets for 

U.S. hazelnut production. 

Recent production and price data 

reflect the stabilizing effect of the 

volume control regulations. Data from 

USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics 

Service (NASS) show that total hazelnut 

production has varied widely over the 

10-year period between 1994 and 2003, 

from a low of 16,500 tons in 1998 to a 

high of 49,500 tons in 2001. Production 

in the shortest crop year and the biggest 

crop year were 50 percent and 160 

percent, respectively, of the 10-year 

average tonnage of 30,920. Grower price 

has not fluctuated to the extent of 

production. Prices in the lowest price 

year and the highest price year were 93 

percent and 115 percent, respectively, of 

the 10-year average price of $898 per 

ton. The considerable lower variability 

of price versus production provides an 

illustration of the order’s pricestabilizing impacts. 

Comparing grower revenue to cost is 

useful in highlighting the impact on 

growers of recent product and price 

levels. A recent hazelnut production 

cost study from Oregon State University 

estimated cost-of-production per acre to 

be approximately $1,340 for a typical 

100-acre hazelnut enterprise. Average 

grower revenue per bearing acre (based 

on NASS acreage and value of 

production data) equaled or exceeded 

that typical cost level only twice from 

1994 to 2003. Average grower revenue 

was below typical costs in the other 

years. Without the stabilizing impact of 

the order, growers may have lost more 

money. While crop size has fluctuated, 

volume regulations contribute to orderly 

marketing and market stability and help 

moderate the variation in returns for all 

producers and handlers, both large and 

small. 

While the level of benefits of this 

rulemaking is difficult to quantify, the 

stabilizing effects of the volume 

regulations impact both small and large 

handlers positively by helping them 

maintain and expand markets even 

though hazelnut supplies fluctuate 

widely from season to season. This 

regulation provides equitable allotment 

of the most profitable market, the 

domestic inshell market. That market is 

available to all handlers, regardless of 

size. 

As an alternative to this regulation, 

the Board discussed not regulating the 

2004–2005 hazelnut crop. However, 

without any regulations in effect, the 

Board believes that the industry would 

tend to oversupply the inshell domestic 

market. The 2004–2005 hazelnut crop is 

larger than last year and much larger 

than expected. The unregulated release 

of 38,616 tons on the domestic inshell 

market would oversupply that small 

market and would cause producer 

returns to decrease, thereby disrupting 

the market.

Section 982.40 of the order establishes 

a procedure and computations for the 

Board to follow in recommending to 

USDA release of preliminary, interim 

final, and final quantities of hazelnuts to 

be released to the free and restricted 

markets each marketing year. The 

program results in plentiful supplies for 

consumers and for market expansion 

while retaining the mechanism for 

dealing with oversupply situations. 

Hazelnuts produced under the order 

comprise virtually all of the hazelnuts 

produced in the U.S. This production 

represents, on average, less than 4 

percent of total U.S. production for 

other tree nuts, and less than 5 percent 

of the world’s hazelnut production. 

Last season, 79 percent of the kernels 

were marketed in the domestic market 

and 21 percent were exported. 

Domestically produced kernels 

generally command a higher price in the 

domestic market than imported kernels. 

The industry is continuing its efforts to 

develop and expand other markets with 

emphasis on the domestic kernel 

market. Small business entities, both 

producers and handlers, benefit from 

the expansion efforts resulting from this 

program. 

Inshell hazelnuts produced under the 

order compete well in export markets 

because of quality. Based on Board 

statistics, Europe has historically been 

the primary export market for U.S. 

produced inshell hazelnuts, with a 10-

year average of 5,255 tons out of total 

average exports of 14,048 tons. Recent 

years have seen a significant shift in 

export destinations. Last season, inshell 

shipments to Europe totaled 5,526 tons, 

representing 24 percent of exports, with 

the largest share going to Germany. 

Inshell shipments to Southwest Pacific 

countries, and Hong Kong in particular, 

have increased dramatically in the past 

few years, rising to 70 percent of total 

exports of 23,319 tons in 2003. The 

industry continues to pursue export 

opportunities. 

There are some reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements under the order. The 

reporting and recordkeeping burdens 

are necessary for compliance purposes 

and for developing statistical data for 

maintenance of the program. The 

information collection requirements 

have been previously approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 

OMB No. 0581–0178. The forms require 

information which is readily available 

from handler records and which can be 

provided without data processing 

equipment or trained statistical staff. 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. This rule does not 

change those requirements. In addition, 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with this rule. 

Further, the Board’s meetings were 

widely publicized throughout the 

hazelnut industry and all interested 

persons were invited to attend the 

meetings and participate in Board 

deliberations. Like all Board meetings, 

those held on August 26, and November 

3, 2004, were public meetings and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 

to express their 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. 

This rule invites comments on the 

establishment of final free and restricted 

percentages for the 2004–2005 

marketing year under the hazelnut 

marketing order. Any comments 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 76389

received will be considered prior to 

finalization of this rule.

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, including the 

Board’s recommendation, and other 

information, it is found that this interim 

final rule, as hereinafter set forth, will 

tend to effectuate the declared policy of 

the Act. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also 

found and determined upon good cause 

that it is impracticable, unnecessary, 

and contrary to the public interest to 

give preliminary notice prior to putting 

this rule into effect and that good cause 

exists for not postponing the effective 

date of this action until 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register

because: (1) The 2004–2005 marketing 

year began July 1, 2004, and the 

percentages established herein apply to 

all merchantable hazelnuts handled 

from the beginning of the crop year; (2) 

handlers are aware of this rule, which 

was recommended at an open Board 

meeting, and need no additional time to 

comply with this rule; and (3) interested 

persons are provided a 60-day comment 

period in which to respond, and all 

comments timely received will be 

considered prior to finalization of this 

action.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 982

Filberts, Hazelnuts, Marketing 

agreements, Nuts, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 982 is amended as 

follows:

PART 982—HAZELNUTS GROWN IN 

OREGON AND WASHINGTON

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 

982 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

■ 2. A new section 982.252 is added to 

read as follows:

[Note: This section will not be published 

in the annual Code of Federal Regulations.]

§ 982.252 Free and restricted 

percentages—2004–2005 marketing year. 

The final free and restricted 

percentages for merchantable hazelnuts 

for the 2004–2005 marketing year shall 

be 6.4921 and 93.5079 percent, 

respectively.

Dated: December 15, 2004. 

A.J. Yates, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service.

[FR Doc. 04–27907 Filed 12–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. NM294; Special Conditions No. 

25–277–SC] 

Special Conditions: Raytheon Aircraft 

Company Model MU–300 and MU–300–

10 Airplanes and Model 400 Airplanes; 

High-Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: These special conditions are 

issued for Raytheon Aircraft Company 

Model MU–300 and MU–300–10 

airplanes and Model 400 airplanes 

modified by Beechjet TECH. These 

modified airplanes will have a novel or 

unusual design feature when compared 

to the state of technology envisioned in 

the airworthiness standards for 

transport category airplanes. The 

modification incorporates installation of 

two Shadin ADC–6400 RVSM–capable 

air data computers that perform critical 

functions. The applicable airworthiness 

regulations do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for the 

protection of these systems from the 

effects of high-intensity radiated fields 

(HIRF). These special conditions 

contain the additional safety standards 

that the Administrator considers 

necessary to establish a level of safety 

equivalent to that established by the 

existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these 

special conditions is December 6, 2004. 

Comments must be received on or 

before January 20, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments on these special 

conditions may be mailed in duplicate 

to: Federal Aviation Administration, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Attention: Rules Docket (ANM–113), 

Docket No. NM294 1601 Lind Avenue, 

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056; 

or delivered in duplicate to the 

Transport Airplane Directorate at the 

above address. All comments must be 

marked Docket No. NM294.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg 

Dunn, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew 

Interface Branch, ANM–111, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2799; 

facsimile (425) 227–1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA has determined that notice 

and opportunity for prior public 

comment is impracticable because these 

procedures would significantly delay 

certification of the airplane and thus 

delivery of the affected aircraft. In 

addition, the substance of these special 

conditions has been subject to the 

public comment process in several prior 

instances with no substantive comments 

received. The FAA therefore finds that 

good cause exists for making these 

special conditions effective upon 

issuance; however, we invite interested 

persons to participate in this rulemaking 

by submitting written comments, data, 

or views. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

special conditions, explain the reason 

for any recommended change, and 

include supporting data. We ask that 

you send us two copies of written 

comments. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning these special conditions. 

The docket is available for public 

inspection before and after the comment 

closing date. If you wish to review the 

docket in person, go to the address in 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

We will consider all comments we 

receive on or before the closing date for 

comments. We will consider comments 

filed late if it is possible to do so 

without incurring expense or delay. We 

may change these special conditions 

based on the comments we receive. 

If you want the FAA to acknowledge 

receipt of your comments on these 

special conditions, include with your 

comments a pre-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the docket number 

appears. We will stamp the date on the 

postcard and mail it back to you. 

Background 

On July 19, 2004, Beechjet TECH, 

4500 S. Garnett, Suite #600, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma 74146 applied for a 

supplemental type certificate (STC) to 

modify Raytheon Aircraft Company 

Model MU–300 and MU–300–10 

airplanes and Model 400 airplanes. 

Model MU–300 is currently approved 

under Type Certificate No. A14SW and 

Models MU–300–10 and 400 are 

currently approved under Type 

Certificate No. A16SW. The Raytheon 

Aircraft Company Model MU–300 and 

MU–300–10 airplanes and Model 400 

airplanes are small transport category 

airplanes powered by two turbojet