This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

21668

Vol. 65, No. 79

Monday, April 24, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 920

[Docket No. FV00–920–1 PR]

Kiwifruit Grown in California;

Temporary Suspension of Inspection

and Pack Requirements

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This rule invites comments

on proposed temporary suspensions of

inspection and pack requirements

prescribed under the California

kiwifruit marketing order (order). The

order regulates the handling of kiwifruit

grown in California and is administered

locally by the Kiwifruit Administrative

Committee (Committee). This rule

would continue, for the 2000–2001

season, the suspension of the

requirement that fruit must be

reinspected if it has not been shipped by

specified dates, and would also

continue the suspension of the

minimum net weight requirements for

kiwifruit tray packs. Both suspensions

are scheduled to expire at the end of the

1999–2000 season. These changes are

expected to reduce handler packing

costs, increase grower returns, and

enable handlers to compete more

effectively in the marketplace.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 24, 2000.

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, room 2525–S, P.O. Box

96456, Washington, DC 20090–6456;

Fax: (202) 720–5698, or E-mail:

moab.docketclerk@usda.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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose

M. Aguayo, 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, room

2525–S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456; telephone: (202) 720–

2491, Fax: (202) 720–5698.

Small businesses may request

information on complying with this

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber,

Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,

AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room

2525–S, Washington, DC 20090–6456;

telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202)

720–5698, or E-mail

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

proposal is issued under Marketing

Order No. 920, as amended (7 CFR part

920), regulating the handling of

kiwifruit 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

(Department) is issuing this rule in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This proposal has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended

to have retroactive effect. This proposal

would 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 the Secretary 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 the Secretary 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 the Secretary’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 invites comments on

proposed temporary suspensions of

inspection and pack requirements

prescribed under the order. This rule

would continue, for the 2000–2001

season, the suspension of the

requirement that fruit must be

reinspected if it has not been shipped by

specified dates, and the suspension of

the minimum net weight requirements

for kiwifruit tray packs. Both

suspensions are scheduled to expire at

the end of the 1999–2000 season (July

31, 2000). These suspensions are

expected to reduce handler-packing

costs, increase grower returns, and

enable handlers to compete more

effectively in the marketplace. This rule

was unanimously recommended by the

Committee at its February 24, 2000,

meeting and would be in effect through

July 31, 2001.

Continued Suspension of Reinspection

Requirement

Section 920.55 of the order requires

that prior to handling any variety of

California kiwifruit, such kiwifruit shall

be inspected by the Federal or FederalState Inspection Service (inspection

service) and certified as meeting the

applicable grade, size, quality, or

maturity requirements in effect pursuant

to § 920.52 or § 920.53.

Section 920.55(b) provides authority

for the establishment, through the

order’s rules and regulations, of a period

prior to shipment during which

inspections must be performed.

Prior to its suspension for 1998–1999

season, § 920.155 of the order’s rules

and regulations specified that the

certification of grade, size, quality, and

maturity of kiwifruit pursuant to

§ 920.52 or § 920.53 during each fiscal

year was valid until December 31 of

such year or 21 days from the date of

inspection, whichever is later. Any

inspected kiwifruit shipped after the

certification period lapsed was required

to be reinspected and recertified before

shipment.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules 21669

Section 920.155 was suspended for

the 1998–1999 season by a final rule

published August 4, 1998 (63 FR

41390). The Committee recommended

this suspension to lessen the expenses

upon the many kiwifruit growers who

had either lost money or merely

recovered their production costs in

recent years. It concluded that the cost

of reinspecting kiwifruit was too high to

justify requiring it in view of the limited

benefit reinspection provided. The

Committee also believed it was no

longer necessary to have fruit

reinspected to provide consumers with

a high quality product because storage

and handling operations had improved

in the industry.

During the 1998–1999 season,

handlers voluntarily checked stored

fruit prior to shipment to ensure that the

condition of the fruit had not

deteriorated. Suspension of the

reinspection requirement enabled

handlers to ship quality kiwifruit during

the 1998–1999 season without the

necessity for reinspection and

recertification and the costs associated

with such requirements. However,

because the harvest started later than

normal and more fruit was in-line

inspected and shipped directly to

buyers less fruit was repacked and

available for evaluation than

anticipated.

Therefore, at its February 25, 1999,

meeting, the Committee unanimously

recommended suspending § 920.155 of

the order for one more season. Section

920.155 was suspended for the 1999–

2000 season by a final rule published on

July 29, 1999 (64 FR 41010).

During the 1999–2000 season a severe

frost reduced the crop size from the

estimated 9 million tray equivalents to

6 million tray equivalents. A tray

equivalent is equal to approximately 7

pounds of fruit. This significant crop

reduction and the excellent quality of

the fruit resulted in limited quantities of

fruit remaining in cold storage for

repacking and evaluation. The

Committee would like to fully evaluate

the suspension of the reinspection

requirement during a normal season.

Therefore the Committee, at its February

24, 2000, meeting, unanimously

recommended suspending § 920.155 for

another season, the 2000–2001 season.

This suspension would be in effect until

July 31, 2001.

Continued Suspension of Minimum Net

Weight Requirements for Trays

Under the terms of the order, fresh

market shipments of kiwifruit grown in

California are required to be inspected

and meet grade, size, maturity, pack,

and container requirements. Section

920.52 authorizes the establishment of

minimum size, pack, and container

requirements.

Section 920.302(a)(4) of the order’s

rules and regulations outlines pack

requirements for fresh shipments of

California kiwifruit.

Section 920.302(a)(4)(iii) specifies

minimum net weight requirements for

fruit of various sizes packed in

containers with cell compartments,

cardboard fillers, or molded trays.

Prior to the 1989–1990 season, there

were no minimum tray weight

requirements although 73.5 percent of

the crop was packed in trays. During the

1989–1990 season, minimum tray

weights were mandated, as there were

many new packers involved in the

kiwifruit packing process and stricter

regulations were viewed as necessary to

provide uniform container weights for

each size. However, since that season

the proportion of the crop packed in

trays has steadily declined.

During the 1997–1998 season, only

15.5 percent of the crop was packed into

molded trays and less than 1 percent of

this fruit was rejected for failure to meet

minimum tray weights. As a

consequence, the Committee believed

that minimum tray weight requirements

might no longer be necessary to

maintain uniformity in the marketplace.

Prior to the 1998–1999 season

handlers were required to meet the

minimum net weight requirements as

shown in the following chart:

Count designation of fruit

Minimum net

weight of fruit

(pounds)

34 or larger ......................... 7.5

35 to 37 .............................. 7.25

38 to 40 .............................. 6.875

41 to 43 .............................. 6.75

44 and smaller .................... 6.5

The Committee met on July 8, 1998,

and unanimously recommended

suspension of the minimum net weight

requirements for kiwifruit packed in cell

compartments, cardboard fillers, or

molded trays for the 1998–1999 season.

Section 920.302(a)(4)(iii) was suspended

for the 1998–1999 season by an interim

final rule which was published

September 3, 1998 (63 FR 14861) and

finalized July 29, 1999 (64 FR 41019).

Even though the fruit was shorter,

more full-bodied, and heavier during

the 1998–1999 season, handlers were

able to reduce packing costs and to

compete more effectively in the market.

The industry continued to pack wellfilled trays without having to spend the

extra time weighing them. There was no

reduction in the uniform appearance of

fruit packed into trays. The consensus of

the industry was that the absence of tray

weights had no impact during the 1998–

1999 season due to the exceptionally

heavy weight of the fruit.

The Committee, at its February 25,

1999, meeting unanimously

recommended suspending the minimum

net weight requirements for the 1999–

2000 season to evaluate the suspended

requirements during a season when the

fruit shape and density were normal.

This suspension was implemented by a

final rule published on July 29, 1999 (64

FR 41010) and is in effect until July 31,

2000.

As previously mentioned, the 1999–

2000 crop was approximately three

million tray-equivalents shorter than

estimated due to a severe frost during

the spring of 1999. This shortage of fruit

resulted in limited quantities of fruit

available for evaluation. Because of the

uncharacteristic fruit in the 1998–1999

season and the short crop in the 1999–

2000 season the Committee would like

to suspend the minimum net weight

requirement for another year of

evaluation. Therefore, at its February 24,

2000, meeting, the Committee, once

again, unanimously recommended

continuing the suspension of

§ 920.302(a)(4)(iii) for another season,

the 2000–2001 season. This suspension

would be in effect until July 31, 2001

and is expected to result in reduced

handler packing costs, and increased

grower returns, and enable handlers to

compete more effectively in the

marketplace.

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.

There are approximately 60 handlers

of California kiwifruit subject to

regulation under the marketing order

and approximately 400 producers in the

production area. Small agricultural

producers are defined by the Small

Business Administration (13 CFR

121.201) as those whose annual receipts

are less than $500,000, and small

21670 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules

agricultural service firms are defined as

those whose annual receipts are less

than $5,000,000. Fifty-nine handlers

have annual receipts less than

$5,000,000, excluding receipts from

other sources. Three hundred ninety

producers have annual sales less than

$500,000, excluding receipts from any

other sources. Therefore, a majority of

the kiwifruit handlers and producers

may be classified as small entities.

This rule invites comments on

proposed temporary suspensions of

inspection and pack requirements

prescribed under the order. This rule

would continue, for the 2000–2001

season, the suspension of the

requirement that fruit must be

reinspected if it has not been shipped by

specified dates, and the minimum net

weight requirements for kiwifruit tray

packs. Both suspensions are scheduled

to expire at the end of the 1999–2000

season (July 31, 2000). Continuation of

the suspensions is expected to reduce

handler-packing costs, increase grower

returns, and enable handlers to compete

more effectively in the marketplace.

This rule was unanimously

recommended by the Committee at its

February 24, 2000, meeting and would

be in effect through July 31, 2001.

Continued Suspension of Reinspection

Requirement

Section 920.55 of the order requires

that prior to handling any variety of

California kiwifruit, such kiwifruit shall

be inspected by the Federal or FederalState Inspection Service (inspection

service) and certified as meeting the

applicable grade, size, quality, or

maturity requirements in effect pursuant

to § 920.52 or § 920.53.

Section 920.55(b) provides authority

for the establishment, through the

order’s rules and regulations, of a period

prior to shipment during which

inspections must be performed.

Prior to its suspension for 1998–1999

season, § 920.155 of the order’s rules

and regulations specified that the

certification of grade, size, quality, and

maturity of kiwifruit pursuant to

§ 920.52 or § 920.53 during each fiscal

year was valid until December 31 of

such year or 21 days from the date of

inspection, whichever is later. Any

inspected kiwifruit shipped after the

certification period lapsed was required

to be reinspected and recertified before

shipment.

Section 920.155 was suspended for

the 1998–1999 season by a final rule

published August 4, 1998 (63 FR

41390). The Committee recommended

this suspension to lessen the expenses

upon the many kiwifruit growers who

had either lost money or merely

recovered their production costs in

recent years. It concluded that the cost

of reinspecting kiwifruit was too high to

justify requiring it in view of the limited

benefit reinspection provides. The

Committee also believed it was no

longer necessary to have fruit

reinspected to provide consumers with

a high quality product because storage

and handling operations had improved

in the industry.

During the 1998–1999 season,

handlers voluntarily checked stored

fruit prior to shipment to ensure that the

condition of the fruit had not

deteriorated. Suspension of the

reinspection requirement enabled

handlers to ship quality kiwifruit during

the 1998–1999 season without the

necessity for reinspection and

recertification and the costs associated

with such requirements. However,

because the harvest started later than

normal and more fruit was in-line

inspected and shipped directly to

buyers, less fruit was repacked and

available for evaluation than

anticipated.

Therefore, at its February 25, 1999,

meeting, the Committee unanimously

recommended suspending § 920.155 of

the order for one more season. Section

920.155 was suspended for the 1999–

2000 season by a final rule published on

July 29, 1999 (64 FR 41010).

During the 1999–2000 season a severe

frost reduced the crop size from the

estimated 9 million tray equivalents to

6 million tray equivalents. A tray

equivalent is equal to approximately 7

pounds of fruit. This significant crop

reduction and the excellent quality of

the fruit resulted in less fruit remaining

in cold storage for repacking and

evaluation.

While the Committee believes the

industry realized benefits from the

suspension of the reinspection

requirement, it would like to evaluate

the results of the suspended

reinspection requirements during a

normal season. Thus the Committee, at

its February 24, 2000, meeting,

unanimously recommended suspending

§ 920.155 for the 2000–2001 season.

This suspension would be in effect until

July 31, 2001.

Continued Suspension of Minimum Net

Weight Requirements for Trays

Under the terms of the order, fresh

market shipments of kiwifruit grown in

California are required to be inspected

and meet grade, size, maturity, pack,

and container requirements. Section

920.52 authorizes the establishment of

minimum size, pack, and container

requirements.

Section 920.302(a)(4) of the order’s

rules and regulations outlines pack

requirements for fresh shipments of

California kiwifruit.

Section 920.302(a)(4)(iii) specifies

minimum net weight requirements for

fruit of various sizes packed in

containers with cell compartments,

cardboard fillers, or molded trays.

Prior to the 1989–1990 season, there

were no minimum tray weight

requirements although 73.5 percent of

the crop was packed in trays. During the

1989–1990 season, minimum tray

weights were mandated, as there were

many new packers involved in the

kiwifruit packing process and stricter

regulations were viewed as necessary to

provide uniform container weights for

each size. However, since that season

the proportion of the crop packed in

trays has steadily declined.

During the 1997–1998 season, only

15.5 percent of the crop was packed into

molded trays and less than 1 percent of

this fruit was rejected for failure to meet

minimum tray weights. As a

consequence, the Committee believed

that minimum tray weight requirements

might no longer be necessary to

maintain uniformity in the marketplace.

Prior to the 1998–1999 season

handlers were required to meet the

minimum net weight requirements as

shown in the following chart:

Count designation fruit

Minimum net

weight of fruit

(pounds)

34 or larger ......................... 7.5

35 to 37 .............................. 7.25

38 to 40 .............................. 6.875

41 to 43 .............................. 6.75

44 and smaller .................... 6.5

The Committee met on July 8, 1998,

and unanimously recommended

suspension of the minimum net weight

requirements for kiwifruit packed in cell

compartments, cardboard fillers, or

molded trays for the 1998–1999 season.

Section 920.302(a)(4)(iii) was suspended

for the 1998–1999 season by an interim

final rule published September 3, 1998

(63 FR 14861).

Even though the fruit was shorter,

more full-bodied, and heavier during

the 1998–1999 season, handlers were

able to reduce packing costs and to

compete more effectively in the market.

The industry continued to pack wellfilled trays without having to spend the

extra time weighing them. There was no

reduction in the uniform appearance of

fruit packed into trays. The consensus of

the industry that season was that the

absence of tray weights had no negative

impact during the 1998–1999 season

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules 21671

due to the exceptionally heavy weight of

the fruit.

The Committee, at its February 25,

1999, meeting, unanimously

recommended suspending the minimum

net weight requirements for the 1999–

2000 season in order to evaluate the

suspended requirements during a

season when the fruit shape and density

were normal. This suspension was

implemented by a final rule published

on July 29, 1999 (64 FR 41010) and is

in effect until July 31, 2000.

As previously mentioned, the 1999–

2000 crop was approximately three

million tray-equivalents shorter than

estimated due to a severe frost during

the spring of 1999. This shortage of fruit

resulted in limited quantities of fruit

available for evaluation. Because of the

uncharacteristic fruit in the 1998–1999

season and the short crop in the 1999–

2000 season the Committee would like

to suspend the minimum net weight

requirement for another year of

evaluation. Therefore, at its February 24,

2000, meeting, the Committee, once

again, unanimously recommended

continuing the suspension of

§ 920.302(a)(4)(iii) for another season,

the 2000–2001 season. This suspension

would be in effect until July 31, 2001,

and is expected to reduce handlerpacking costs, increase grower returns,

and enable handlers to compete more

effectively in the marketplace.

These changes address the marketing

and shipping needs of the kiwifruit

industry and are in the interest of

handlers, growers, buyers, and

consumers. The impact of these changes

is expected to be beneficial to all

handlers and growers regardless of size.

The Committee discussed alternatives

to this change, including indefinitely

suspending these requirements. While

the industry continues to believe that

the suspensions helped handlers reduce

packing costs and compete more

effectively in the marketplace, it is not

yet ready to recommend permanent

suspension for the 2000–2001 and

future seasons. Both the 1998–1999 and

1999–2000 seasons were abnormal in

some respects and the Committee would

like to study the results of the

suspensions during a normal season.

Thus, the Committee unanimously

agreed to suspend these requirements

for the 2000–2001 season.

This proposed rule would relax

inspection and pack requirements under

the kiwifruit marketing order.

Accordingly, this action would not

impose any additional reporting or

recordkeeping requirements on either

small or large kiwifruit 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.

The Department has not identified

any relevant Federal rules that

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this

proposed rule.

In addition, the Committee’s meetings

were widely publicized throughout the

kiwifruit industry and all interested

persons were invited to attend the

meetings and participate in Committee

deliberations. Like all Committee

meetings, the February 24, 2000,

meeting was a public meeting and all

entities, both large and small, were able

to express their views on this issue. The

majority of the industry are small

entities. 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 the following web site:

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 30-day comment period is provided

to allow interested persons to respond

to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed

appropriate because this rule would

meet to be in place by August 1, 2000

as the current suspension expires on

July 31, 2000, and handlers need to

make operational decisions in time for

the 2000–2001 season. All written

comments timely received will be

considered before a final determination

is made on this matter.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 920

Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 920 is proposed to

be amended as follows:

PART 920—KIWIFRUIT GROWN IN

CALIFORNIA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 920 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

§ 920.155 [Suspended in part]

2. In part 920, § 920.155 is suspended

in its entirety effective August 1, 2000,

through July 31, 2001.

§ 920.302 [Suspended in part]

3. In § 920.302, paragraph (a)(4)(iii) is

suspended effective August 1, 2000,

through July 31, 2001.

Dated: April 18, 2000.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–10064 Filed 4–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Utilities Service

7 CFR Part 1724

RIN 0572–AB54

Electric Engineering, Architectural

Services and Design Policies and

Procedures

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service

(RUS) is proposing to amend its

regulations to revise its requirements

regarding RUS approval of plans and

specifications for buildings.

Specifically, RUS is proposing that the

requirement for RUS approval of

architectural plans and specifications

for buildings be eliminated and that

instead the borrower’s architect or

engineer be required to state that the

design complies with certain specific

standards. This change is being made in

order to provide better service to

borrowers.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by RUS, or bear a postmark or

equivalent, no later than June 23, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to F. Lamont Heppe, Jr.,

Director, Program Development and

Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Stop 1522, 1400 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20250–1522.

Telephone: (202) 720–9550. RUS

requires a signed original and three

copies of all comments (7 CFR 1700.4).

Comments will be available for public

inspection during regular business

hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred

J. Gatchell, Deputy Director, Electric

Staff Division, Rural Utilities Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop

1569, 1400 Independence Ave., SW.,

Washington, DC 20250–1569.

Telephone: (202) 720–1398. FAX: (202)

720–7491. E-mail:

fgatchel@rus.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule has been

determined to be not significant for the

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and,