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,

21672 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules

therefore, has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB).

Executive Order 12372

This proposed rule is excluded from

the scope of Executive Order 12372,

Intergovernmental Consultation, which

may require consultation with State,

local, and tribal government or the

private sector. See the final rule related

notice entitled ‘‘Department Programs

and Activities Excluded from Executive

Order 12372,’’ (50 FR 47034).

Executive Order 12988

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. RUS has determined

that this rule meets the applicable

standards provided in Section 3 of the

Executive Order. In accordance with the

Executive Order and the rule: (1) All

State and local laws and regulations that

are in conflict with this rule will be

preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will

be given to this rule, and (3), in

accordance with § 212(e) of the

Department of Agriculture

Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C.

§ 6912(e)), if any are more required, they

must be exhausted prior to initiating

litigation against the Department or its

agencies.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

The Administrator of RUS has

determined that this rule relating to

RUS electric loan program is not a rule

as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and, therefore,

the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not

apply to this rule. RUS borrowers, as a

result of obtaining federal financing,

receive economic benefits that exceed

any direct economic costs associated

with complying with RUS regulations

and requirements.

National Environmental Policy Act

Certification

The Administrator of RUS has

determined that this proposed rule will

not significantly affect the quality of the

human environment as defined by the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Therefore,

this action does not require an

environmental impact statement or

assessment.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The program described by this

proposed rule is listed in the Catalog of

Federal Domestic Assistance programs

under No. 10.850, Rural Electrification

Loans and Loan Guarantees. This

catalog is available on a subscription

basis from the Superintendent of

Documents, the United States

Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402–9325, telephone

number (202) 512–1800.

Information Collection and

Recordkeeping Requirements

The reporting and recordkeeping

requirements contained in this rule

were approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)

under OMB control number 0572–0118.

Send questions or comments

regarding this burden or any other

aspect of these collection of

information, including suggestions for

reducing the burden to F. Lamont

Heppe, Jr., Director, Program

Development and Regulatory Analysis,

Rural Utilities Service, USDA, 1400

Independence Ave., Room 4034 SBldg.,

STOP 1522, Washington, DC 20250–

1522.

Unfunded Mandates

This proposed rule contains no

Federal mandates (under the regulatory

provision of title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act) for State, local,

and tribal governments or the private

sector. Thus, this proposed rule is not

subject to the requirements of sections

202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act.

Background

RUS has promulgated regulations

pertaining to the design and

construction of RUS electric borrower’s

systems. These regulations are

contained in 7 CFR chapter XVII, Part

1724, Electric Engineering,

Architectural Services and Design

Policies and Procedures, which

describes policies and procedures

pertaining to RUS electric borrower

procurement of architectural and

engineering services for planning,

design, and construction management of

buildings and electric utility plant such

as distribution and transmission lines,

substations, communications and

control systems, and generating plants.

RUS has determined that continued

review and approval of plans and

specifications for buildings by RUS is

not necessary. This will eliminate the

burden on the borrowers of having to

send the plans and specifications to

RUS before issuing them to bidders.

However, RUS will require that the

borrower’s architect or engineer state

that the design complies with certain

specific standards. This change is being

made in order to provide better service

to borrowers.

We are also correcting a date in the

list of contract forms.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1724

Electric power, Loan programs—

energy, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Rural areas.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, RUS proposes to amend 7

CFR chapter XVII by amending part

1724 as follows:

PART 1724—ELECTRICAL

ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES AND DESIGN POLICIES

AND PROCEDURES

1. The authority citation for part 1724

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 901 et seq., 1921 et

seq., 6941 et seq.

2. Section 1724.54(f)(2) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 1724.54 Requirements for RUS approval

of plans and specifications.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(2) Unless RUS approval is required

by paragraph (a) of this section, plans

and specifications for headquarters

buildings do not require RUS approval.

The borrower shall submit two copies of

RUS Form 740g, Application for

Headquarters Facilities. This form is

available from Program Development

and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities

Service, United States Department of

Agriculture, Stop 1522, 1400

Independence Ave., SW., Washington,

DC 20250–1522. The application must

show floor area and estimated cost

breakdown between office building

space and space for equipment

warehousing and service facilities, and

include a one line drawing (floor plan

and elevation view), to scale, of the

proposed building with overall

dimensions shown. The information

concerning the planned building may be

included in the borrower’s construction

work plan in lieu of submitting it with

the application. (See 7 CFR part 1710,

subpart F.) Prior to issuing the plans

and specifications for bid, the borrower

shall also submit to RUS a statement,

signed by the architect or engineer, that

the building design meets the Uniform

Federal Accessibility Standards (See

§ 1724.51(e)(1)(i)).

* * * * *

3. Section 1724.74(d)(7) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 1724.74 List of electric program standard

contract forms.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(7) RUS Form 284, Rev. 4–72, Final

Statement of Cost for Architectural

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 79 / Monday, April 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules 21673

Service. This form is used for the

closeout of architectural services

contracts.

* * * * *

Dated: April 12, 2000.

Jill Long Thompson,

Under Secretary, Rural Development.

[FR Doc. 00–10140 Filed 4–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 32

[Docket No. PRM–32–05]

Metabolic Solutions: Denial of Petition

for Rulemaking

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Denial of petition for

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is denying a petition

for rulemaking (PRM–32–05) submitted

by Metabolic Solutions. The petitioner

requested that the NRC extend the

regulatory distribution exemption for 1

microcurie of carbon-14 (C–14) urea to

include a product being developed by

its company. The product is the

Erythromycin Breath Test (EBT) which

uses a 111-kilobequerel (kBq) (3-

microcurie) dose of C–14 erythromycin.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff.

Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30

a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.

You may also provide comments via

the NRC’s interactive rulemaking

website (http://ruleforum.llnl.gov). This

site provides the capability to upload

comments as files (any format), if your

web browser supports that function. For

information about the interactive

rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol

Gallagher (301) 415–5905 (e-mail:

cag@nrc.gov).

Copies of any comments received may

be examined at the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW

(Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

James Smith, telephone (301) 415–6459,

e-mail: jas4@nrc.gov, of the Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

On May 4, 1999 (64 FR 23796), NRC

noticed receipt and requested comment

on the PRM filed by Metabolic Solutions

Inc. The comment period closed on July

20, 1999. Notice of receipt of the

Metabolic Solutions PRM resulted in the

NRC receiving comment letters from

two medical universities in support of

the petition.

The C–14 EBT measures the activity,

in-vivo, of an important liver enzyme

that is the most abundant drugmetabolizing enzyme in the body. This

test is currently used to determine the

safety of new drugs during clinical

trials; as such, it is used only as a

research tool. The petitioner states that

the doses associated with this test are

comparable to the doses for the C–14

urea test which is exempt from the

requirement for licensing pursuant to 10

CFR 30.21 (a).

Public Comments on the Petition

The notice of receipt of the PRM

invited interested persons to submit

comments. The two public comments

received in response to the notice, from

the University of Nebraska Medical

Center and Johns Hopkins Medical

Institutions, were in support of the

petition. The two comments generally

noted the low doses associated with the

test and the possible economic benefit

in reducing the expense of clinical trials

through elimination of the need for a

byproduct materials license.

Reasons for Denial

A denial is consistent with the

Commission’s previous decision on the

C–14 urea tests to require that research

be performed under a specific license

(62 FR 63634), since this product is to

be used only in research use. The doses

are not the limiting factor for extending

the distribution exemption to this test.

The previous decision was based upon

restrictions of such use under the

common rule entitled ‘‘Federal Policy

for the Protection of Human Subjects;

Notices and Rules’’ (56 FR 28002).

Although the NRC did not adopt the

common rule, our intention is to follow

the essential requirements of the rule,

which have been adopted into 10 CFR

35.6, ‘‘Provisions for Research Involving

Human Subjects.’’ Specifically, 10 CFR

35.6 requires a licensee that conducts

research involving human research

subjects to obtain informed consent and

obtain approval by an Institutional

Review Board. Because the common

rule did not allow for exemptions for

research involving minimal risk, the

Commission determined that such

research use should not be exempt from

10 CFR 35.6.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day

of April, 2000.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 00–10147 Filed 4–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–SW–66–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter

Deutschland GMBH Model BO–105A,

BO–105C, BO–105 C–2, BO–105 CB–2,

BO–105 CB–4, BO–105S, BO–105 CS–

2, BO–105 CBS–2, BO–105 CBS–4, and

BO–105LS A–1 Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD) for Eurocopter

Deutschland GMBH (ECD) Model BO–

105A, BO–105C, BO–105 C–2, BO–105

CB–2, BO–105 CB–4, BO–105S, BO–105

CS–2, BO–105 CBS–2, BO–105 CBS–4,

and BO–105LS A–1 helicopters. That

AD currently requires creating a

component log card or equivalent record

and determining the calendar age and

number of flights on each tensiontorsion (TT) strap. That AD also requires

inspecting and removing, as necessary,

certain unairworthy TT straps. This

action would establish a life limit for

certain main rotor TT straps. This

proposal is prompted by a need to

establish a life limit for certain TT

straps because of an accident in which

a main rotor blade (blade) separated

from an ECD Model MBB–BK 117

helicopter due to fatigue failure of a TT

strap. The same part-numbered TT strap

is used on the ECD Model BO–105

helicopters. The actions specified by

this AD are intended to prevent fatigue

failure of the TT strap, loss of a blade,

and subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 23, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–SW–66–