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

2908

Vol. 65, No. 12

Wednesday, January 19, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 993

[Docket No. FV00–993–2 PR]

Dried Prunes Produced in California;

Undersized Regulation for the 2000–

2001 Crop Year

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This rule invites comments

on changes to the undersized regulation

for dried prunes received by handlers

from producers and dehydrators under

Marketing Order No. 993 for the 2000–

2001 crop year. The marketing order

regulates the handling of dried prunes

produced in California and is

administered locally by the Prune

Marketing Committee (Committee). This

rule would remove the smallest, least

desirable of the marketable size dried

prunes produced in California from

human consumption outlets and allow

handlers to dispose of the undersized

prunes in such outlets as livestock feed.

The Committee estimated that this rule

would reduce the excess of dried prunes

by approximately 5,100 tons while

leaving sufficient prunes to fulfill

foreign and domestic trade demand.

DATES: Comments received by April 17,

2000, 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, 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 available for public inspection in

the Office of the Docket Clerk during

regular business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard P. Van Diest, Marketing

Specialist, California Marketing Field

Office, 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, room 2525–S, P.O. Box

96456, Washington, DC 20090–6456;

telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202)

720–5698, or E-Mail:

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule

is issued under Marketing Agreement

and Order No. 993, both as amended (7

CFR part 993), regulating the handling

of dried prunes produced in California,

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘order.’’

The marketing agreement and order are

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 rule 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 proposal invites comments on

changes to the undersized regulation in

§ 993.49(c) of the prune marketing order

for the 2000–2001 crop year for supply

management purposes. The regulation

removes prunes passing through

specified screen openings. For French

prunes, the screen opening would be

increased from 23⁄32 to 24⁄32 of an inch

in diameter; and for non-French prunes,

the opening would be increased from

28⁄32 to 30⁄32 of an inch in diameter. This

rule would remove the smallest, least

desirable of the marketable size dried

prunes produced in California from

human consumption outlets. The rule

would be in effect from August 1, 2000,

through July 31, 2001, and was

unanimously recommended by the

Committee at a November 30, 1999,

meeting.

Section 993.19b of the prune

marketing order defines undersized

prunes as prunes which pass freely

through a round opening of a specified

diameter. Section 993.49(c) of the prune

marketing order establishes an

undersized regulation of 23⁄32 of an inch

for French prunes and 28⁄32 of an inch

for non-French prunes. These diameter

openings have been in effect for quality

control purposes. Section 993.49(c) also

provides that the Secretary upon a

recommendation of the Committee may

establish larger openings for undersized

dried prunes whenever it is determined

that supply conditions for a crop year

warrant such regulation. Section

993.50(g) states in part: ‘‘No handler

shall ship or otherwise dispose of, for

human consumption, the quantity of

prunes determined by the inspection

service pursuant to § 993.49(c) to be

undersized prunes. * * * Pursuant to

§ 993.52, minimum standards, pack

specifications, including the openings

prescribed in § 993.49(c), may be

modified by the Secretary on the basis

of a recommendation of the Committee

or other information.

Pursuant to the authority in § 993.52

of the order, § 993.400 modifies the

undersized prune openings prescribed

in § 993.49(c) to permit openings of 23⁄32

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 2909

or 24⁄32 of an inch for French prunes and 28⁄32 or 30⁄32 of an inch for non-French

prunes.

During the 1974–75 and 1977–78 crop

years, the undersized prune regulation

was established by the Department at

23⁄32 of an inch in diameter for French

prunes and 28⁄32 of an inch in diameter

for non-French prunes. These diameter

openings were established in §§ 993.401

and 993.404, respectively (39 FR 32733,

September 11, 1974; and 42 FR 49802,

September 28, 1977). In addition, the

Committee recommended and the

Department established volume

regulation percentages during the 1974–

75 crop year with an undersized

regulation at the aforementioned 23⁄32

and 28⁄32 inch diameter screen sizes.

During the 1975–76 and 1976–77 crop

years, the undersized prune regulation

was established at 24⁄32 of an inch for

French prunes and 30⁄32 of an inch for

non-French prunes. These diameter

openings were established in §§ 993.402

and 993.403 respectively (40 FR 42530,

September 15, 1975; and 41 FR 37306,

September 3, 1976). The prune industry

had an excess supply of prunes—

particularly small size prunes. Rather

than recommending volume regulation

percentages for the 1975–76, 1976–77,

and 1977–78 crop years, the Committee

recommended the establishment of an

undersized prune regulation applicable

to all prunes received by handlers from

producers and dehydrators during each

of those crop years.

The objective of the undersized prune

regulations during each of those crop

years was to preclude the use of small

prunes in manufactured prune products

such as juice and concentrate. Handlers

could not market undersized prunes for

human consumption, but could dispose

of them in nonhuman outlets such as

livestock feed.

With these experiences as a basis, the

marketing order was amended on

August 1, 1982, establishing the

continuing quality-related regulation for

undersized French and non-French

prunes under § 993.49(c). That

regulation has removed from the

marketable supply those prunes which

are not desirable for use in prune

products.

As in the 1970’s, the prune industry

is currently experiencing an excess

supply of prunes—particularly in the

smaller sizes. During the 1998–99 crop

year, an undersized prune regulation

was established at 24⁄32 of an inch for

French prunes, and 30⁄32 of an inch for

non-French prunes. These diameter

openings were established in § 993.405

(63 FR 20058, April 23, 1998). With

larger than desired carryin inventories

and a 1999–2000 prune crop of about

165,000 natural condition tons, the

Committee unanimously recommended

continuing with an undersized prune

regulation at 24⁄32 of an inch in diameter

for French prunes and 30⁄32 of an inch

in diameter for non-French prunes.

These diameter openings were

established in § 993.406 (64 FR 23759,

May 4, 1999) and made effective from

August 1, 1999, through July 31, 2000.

For the 1998–99, the carryin

inventory level reached a record high of

126,485 natural condition tons.

Excessive inventories tend to dampen

producer returns, and cause weak

marketing conditions. The carryin for

the 1999–2000 crop year was reduced to

59,944 natural condition tons. This

reduction was due to the low level of

salable production in 1998–99 (about

102,521 natural condition tons and 50

percent of a normal size crop) and the

undersized prune regulation. According

to the Committee, the desired inventory

level to keep trade distribution channels

full while awaiting the new crop has

ranged between 35,353 and 42,071

natural condition tons since the 1996–

97 crop year, while the actual inventory

has ranged between 59,944 and 126,485

natural condition tons since that year.

The desired inventory level for early

season shipments fluctuates from yearto-year depending on market conditions.

At its meeting on November 30, 1999,

the Committee unanimously

recommended continuing an undersized

prune regulation at 24⁄32 of an inch in

diameter for French prunes and 30⁄32 of

an inch in diameter for non-French

prunes during the 2000–2001 crop year

for supply management purposes. This

regulation would be in effect from

August 1, 2000, through July 31, 2001.

The Committee estimated that there

will be an excess of about 8,200 natural

condition tons of dried prunes as of July

31, 2000. This proposed rule would

continue to remove primarily smallsized prunes from human consumption

channels, consistent with the

undersized prune regulation that was

implemented for the 1998–99 and 1999–

2000 crop years. It is estimated that

approximately 5,100 natural condition

tons of small prunes would be removed

from human consumption channels

during the 2000–2001 crop year. This

would leave sufficient prunes to fill

domestic and foreign trade demand

during the 2000–2001 crop year, and

provide an adequate carryout on July 31,

2001, for early season shipments until

the new crop is available for shipment.

According to the Committee, the desired

inventory level to keep trade

distribution channels full while

awaiting the 2000–2001 crop is about

39,000 natural condition tons.

In its deliberations, the Committee

reviewed statistics reflecting: (1) A

worldwide prune demand which has

been relatively stable at about 260,000

tons; (2) a worldwide oversupply that is

expected to continue growing into the

next century (estimated at 350,845

natural condition tons by the year 2003);

(3) a continuing oversupply situation in

California caused by increased

production from increased plantings

and higher yields per acre (between the

1990–91 and 1999–2000 crop years, the

yield ranged from 1.2 to 2.6 versus a 10-

year average of 2.2 tons per acre); and

(4) California’s continued excess

inventory situation. The production of

these small sizes ranged from 1,332 to

8,778 natural condition tons during the

1990–91 through the 1998-99 crop

years. The Committee concluded that it

has to continue utilizing supply

management techniques to accelerate

the return to a balanced supply/demand

situation in the interest of the California

dried prune industry. The proposed

changes to the undersized regulation for

the 2000-2001 crop year are the result of

these deliberations, and the Committee’s

desire to gradually bring supplies in line

with market needs.

The industry’s oversupply situation is

expected to continue over the next few

years due to new prune plantings in

recent years with higher yields per acre.

These plantings have a higher tree

density per acre than the older prune

plantings. During the 1990–91 crop

year, the non-bearing acreage totaled

5,900 acres; but by 1998–99, the nonbearing acreage had quadrupled to more

than 26,000 acres. The 1996–97 through

1998–99 yields have ranged from 1.2 to

2.6 tons per acre. Over the last 10-years,

the average was 2.2 tons per acre.

The 1999–2000 dried prune crop is

expected to be 165,000 natural

condition tons. Another large crop of

about 200,000 natural condition tons is

expected for the 2000–2001 crop year,

partly because of an anticipated increase

in bearing acreage.

Since the 1997–98 crop year,

producer prices for the 24⁄32 of an inch

in diameter French prunes have been

about $40–$50 per ton, about $260–$270

per ton below the cost of production.

The lower producer prices are expected

to continue as an incentive for

production of larger size prunes. The

larger sizes will help the industry better

meet the increasing market demand for

larger-sized pitted prunes.

The 1998–99 and 1999–2000

undersized prune rules of 24⁄32 of an

inch for French prunes and 30⁄32 of an

inch for non-French prunes have

expedited the reduction of small prune

inventories, but more needs to be done

2910 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

to bring supplies into balance with

market demand. The excess inventory

on July 31, 1999, was 17,873 natural

condition tons, and only about 5,130

natural condition tons of dried prunes

are expected to be removed from the

1999–2000 marketable supply by the

current undersized regulation. The

Committee believes that the same

undersized regulation also should be

implemented during the 2000–2001

crop year to continue reducing the

inventories of small prunes, to help

reduce the expected large 2000–2001

prune crop, and more quickly bring

supplies in line with demand.

Attainment of this goal would benefit all

of the producers and handlers of

California prunes.

The recommended decision of June 1,

1981 (46 FR 29271) regarding

undersized prunes states that the

undersized prune regulation at the

23⁄32 and 28⁄32 inch diameter size

openings would be continuous for the

purposes of quality control even in

above parity situations. It further states

that any change (i.e., increase) in the

size of those openings would not be for

the purpose of establishing a new

quality-related minimum. Larger

openings would only be applicable

when supply conditions warranted the

regulation of a larger quantity of prunes

as undersized prunes. Thus, any

regulation prescribing openings larger

than those in § 993.49(c) should not be

implemented when the grower average

price is expected to be above parity. The

season average price received by prune

growers averaged about 49 percent of

parity during the 1994 through 1998

seasons and is in a downward trend. As

discussed later, the average grower price

for prunes during the 2000–2001 crop

year is not expected to be above parity,

and implementation of this more

restrictive undersized regulation would

be appropriate in reference to parity.

Section 8e of the Act requires that

when certain domestically produced

commodities, including prunes, are

regulated under a Federal marketing

order, imports of that commodity must

meet the same or comparable grade,

size, quality, or maturity requirements

for the domestically produced

commodity. This action would not

impact the dried prune import

regulation because the action would

affect volume control, not quality

control. The smaller diameter openings

of 23⁄32 of an inch for French prunes and 28⁄32 of an inch for non-French prunes

were implemented to improve product

quality. The recommended increases to

24⁄32 of an inch in diameter for French

prunes and 30⁄32 of an inch in diameter

for non-French prunes are for purposes

of volume control. Therefore, the

increased diameters would not be

applied to imported prunes.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

has considered the economic impact of

this rule 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 1,250

producers of dried prunes in the

production area and approximately 20

handlers subject to regulation under the

marketing order. Small agricultural

producers have been defined by the

Small Business Administration (13 CFR

121.601) as those having annual receipts

less than $500,000, and small

agricultural service firms are defined as

those whose annual receipts are less

than $5,000,000.

An updated industry profile shows

that 7 out of 20 handlers (35%) shipped

over $5,000,000 worth of dried prunes

and could be considered large handlers

by the Small Business Administration.

Thirteen of the 20 handlers (65%)

shipped under $5,000,000 worth of

prunes and could be considered small

handlers. An estimated 109 producers,

or less than 9% of the 1,250 total

producers, would be considered large

growers with annual incomes over

$500,000. The majority of handlers and

producers of California dried prunes

may be classified as small entities.

This proposed rule would establish an

undersized prune regulation of 24⁄32 of

an inch in diameter for French prunes

and 30⁄32 of an inch in diameter for nonFrench prunes for the 2000–2001 crop

year for inventory management

purposes. This change in regulation

would result in more of the smaller

sized prunes being classified as

undersized prunes and is expected to

benefit producers, handlers, and

consumers. The larger screen openings

currently in place for 1999–2000 are

expected to remove only 5,130 tons of

dried prunes from the excess marketable

supply. The Committee estimated that

there will be an excess of about 8,200

natural condition tons of dried prunes

on July 31, 2000. Implementation of the

larger openings in 2000–2001 is

expected to reduce that surplus by about

5,100 tons.

Because the benefits and costs of the

proposed action would be directly

proportional to the quantity of 24⁄32

screen French prunes and 30⁄32 screen

non-French prunes produced or

handled, small businesses should not be

disproportionately affected by the

proposal. While variation in sugar

content, prune density, and dry-away

ratio vary from county to county, they

also vary from orchard to orchard and

season to season. In the major producing

areas of the Sacramento and San Joaquin

Valleys (which account for over 99

percent of the state’s production), the

prunes produced are homogeneous

enough that the proposal should not be

viewed as inequitable by large and small

producers in any area of the State.

The quantity of small prunes in a lot

is not dependent on whether a producer

or handler is small or large; but is

primarily dependent on cultural

practices, soil composition, and water

costs. The cost to minimize the quantity

of small prunes is similar for small and

large entities. The anticipated benefits

of this rule are not expected to be

disproportionately greater or lesser for

small handlers or producers than for

larger entities. The only additional costs

on producers and handlers expected

from the increased openings would be

the disposal of additional tonnage (now

estimated to be about 5,100 tons) to

nonhuman consumption outlets. These

costs are expected to be minimal and

would be offset by the benefits derived

by the elimination of some of the excess

supply of small-sized prunes.

At the November 30, 1999, meeting,

the Committee discussed the financial

impact of this change on handlers and

producers. Handlers and producers

receive higher returns for the larger size

prunes. Prunes eliminated through the

implementation of this rule have very

little value. As mentioned earlier, the

current situation for producers of these

small sizes is quite bleak with producers

losing about $260–$270 on every ton

delivered to handlers. The 1999–2000

grower field price for 24⁄32 screen French

prunes ranges between $40 and $50 per

ton, the same as the 1998–99 crop year.

The cost of drying a ton of such prunes

is $260 per ton at a 4 to 1 dry-away

ratio, transportation is at least $20 per

ton, and the producer assessment paid

to the California Prune Board (a body

which administers the State marketing

order for promotion) is $30 per ton. The

total cost is about $310 per ton which

equates to a loss of about $260–$270 per

ton for every ton of 24⁄32 screen French

prunes produced and delivered to

handlers.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 2911

Utilizing data provided by the

Committee, the Department has

evaluated the impact of the proposed

undersized regulation change upon

producers and handlers in the industry.

The analysis shows that a reduction in

the marketable production and handler

inventories could result in higher

season-average prices which would

benefit all producers. The removal of

the smallest, least desirable of the

marketable dried prunes produced in

California from human consumption

outlets would eliminate an estimated

5,100 tons of small-sized dried prunes

during the 2000–2001 crop year from

the marketplace. This would help lessen

the negative marketing and pricing

effects resulting from the excess

inventory situation facing the industry.

California prune handlers reported that

they held 59,944 tons of natural

condition prunes on July 31, 1999, the

end of the 1998–99 crop year. The

59,944 ton year-end inventory is larger

than what is desired for early season

shipments by the prune industry. The

desired industry inventory level is

based on an average 12-week supply to

keep trade distribution channels full

while awaiting new crop. Currently, it is

about 39,000 natural condition tons.

This leaves a 1999–2000 inventory

surplus of about 18,000 tons. The near

normal size 1999–2000 prune crop

(165,000 tons) and undersized

regulation will help reduce the surplus,

but the anticipated large 2000–2001

prune crop is expected to worsen the

supply imbalance.

As the marketable dried prune

production and surplus prune

inventories are reduced through this

proposal, and producers continue to

implement improved cultural and

thinning practices to produce largersized prunes, continued improvement

in producer returns is expected.

For the 1994–95 through the 1998–99

crop years, the season average price

received by the producers ranged from

a high of $1,120 per ton to a low of $784

per ton during the 1998–99 crop year.

The season average price received by

producers during that 5-year period

averaged about 49 percent of parity.

Based on available data and estimates of

prices, production, and other economic

factors, the season average producer

price for the 1999–2000 season is

expected to be about $905 per ton, or

about 43 percent of parity.

The Committee discussed alternatives

to this change, including making no

changes to the undersized prune

regulation and allowing market

dynamics to foster prune inventory

adjustments through lower prices on the

smaller prunes. While reduced grower

prices for small prunes are expected to

contribute toward a slow reduction in

dried prune inventories, the Committee

believed that the undersized rule change

is needed to expedite that reduction.

With the excess tonnage of dried

prunes, the Committee also considered

establishing a reserve pool and

diversion program to reduce the

oversupply situation. These initiatives

were not supported because they would

not specifically eliminate the smallest,

least valuable prunes which are in

oversupply. Instead, the reserve pool

and diversion program would eliminate

larger size prunes from human

consumption outlets. Reserve pools for

prunes have historically been

implemented on dried prunes regardless

of the size of the prunes. While the

marketing order also allows handlers to

remove the larger prunes from the pool

by replacing them with small prunes

and the value difference in cash, this

exchange would be cumbersome and

expensive to administer compared to

the proposal.

Section 8e of the Act requires that

when certain domestically produced

commodities, including prunes, are

regulated under a Federal marketing

order, imports of that commodity must

meet the same or comparable grade,

size, quality, or maturity requirements

for the domestically produced

commodity. This action does not impact

the dried prune import regulation

because the action to be implemented is

for inventory management, not quality

control purposes. The smaller diameter

openings of 23⁄32 of an inch for French

prunes and 28⁄32 of an inch for nonFrench prunes were implemented for

the purpose of improving product

quality. The recommended increases to

24⁄32 of an inch in diameter for French

prunes and 30⁄32 of an inch in diameter

for non-French prunes are for purposes

of inventory management. Therefore,

the increased diameters would not be

applied to imported prunes.

This action would not impose any

additional reporting or recordkeeping

requirements on either small or large

California dried prune 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

rule.

In addition, the Committee’s meeting

was widely publicized throughout the

prune industry and all interested

persons were invited to attend the

meeting and participate in Committee

deliberations on all issues. Like all

Committee meetings, the November 30,

1999, meeting was a public meeting and

all entities, both large and small, were

able to express views on this issue. The

Committee itself is composed of twentytwo members. Seven are handlers,

fourteen are producers, and one is a

public member. Moreover, the

Committee and its Supply Management

Subcommittee have been monitoring the

supply situation, and this proposed rule

reflects their deliberations completely.

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 website:

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.

The Committee has requested a

comment period through April 17, 2000,

to allow interested persons to respond

to this proposal. This longer comment

period is needed to give the Committee

more time to observe the bloom period

during the spring and industry

shipment trends during the year and

allow sufficient time to comment to the

Department concerning any changes

deemed appropriate. All written

comments timely received will be

considered before a final determination

is made on this matter.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 993

Marketing agreements, Plums, Prunes,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 993 is proposed to

be amended as follows:

PART 993—DRIED PRUNES

PRODUCED IN CALIFORNIA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 993 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

Note: This section will not appear in the

Code of Federal Regulations.

2. A new § 993.407 is added to read

as follows:

§ 993.407 Undersized prune regulation for

the 2000–2001 crop year.

Pursuant to §§ 993.49(c) and 993.52,

an undersized prune regulation for the

2000–2001 crop year is hereby

established. Undersized prunes are

2912 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

prunes which pass through openings as

follows: for French prunes, 24⁄32 of an

inch in diameter; for non-French

prunes, 30⁄32 of an inch in diameter.

Dated: January 12, 2000.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–1222 Filed 1–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Parts 250 and 310

Notice of Intent to Request Public

Comments on Guides for the

Household Furniture Industry and the

Telemarketing Sales Rule

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice of intent to request

public comments.

SUMMARY: As part of its ongoing

systematic review of all Federal Trade

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) rules and

guides, the Commission gives notice

that it intends to request public

comments on the Guides for the

Household Furniture Industry and the

Telemarketing Sales Rule during 2000.

The Commission will request comments

on, among other things, the economic

impact of, and the continuing need for,

the rule and guides; possible conflict

between the rule and guides and state,

local, or other federal laws or

regulations; and the effect on the rule

and guides of any technological,

economic, or other industry changes. No

Commission determination on the need

for or the substance of the rule or guides

should be inferred from the intent to

publish requests for comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Further details may be obtained from

the contact person listed for each

particular item.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission intends to initiate a review

of and solicit public comments on the

following during 2000:

(1) Guides for the Household

Furniture Industry, 16 CFR part 250.

Agency Contact: Ingrid E. WhittakerWare, Federal Trade Commission,

Southeast Region, Suite 5M35, Midrise

Building, 60 Forsyth Street, S.W.,

Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 6561364.

(2) Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 CFR

Part 310.

Agency Contact: Catherine C.

Harrington-McBride, Federal Trade

Commission, Bureau of Consumer

Protection, Division of Marketing

Practices, Room H238, 600

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington,

DC 20580, (202) 326–2452.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41–58.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–993 Filed 1–18–00; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

32 CFR Part 326

National Reconnaissance Office;

National Reconnaissance Office

Privacy Act Program

AGENCY: National Reconnaissance

Office, DOD.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule

establishes the National Reconnaissance

Office Privacy Act Program. This rule

establishes policies and procedures for

implementing the NRO Privacy

Program, and delegates authorities and

assigns responsibilities for the

administration of the NRO Privacy

Program

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 20, 2000, to be considered by the

agency.

ADDRESSES: National Reconnaissance

Office, Information Access and Release

Center, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA

20151-1715.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Barbara Freimann at (703) 808-5029.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866, ‘Regulatory

Planning and Review’

It has been determined that 32 CFR

part 321 is not a significant regulatory

action. The rule does not:

(1) Have an annual effect to the

economy of $100 million or more; or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy; a section of the economy;

productivity; competition; jobs; the

environment; public health or safety; or

state, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another Agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof;

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in this Executive Order.

Public Law 96-354, ‘Regulatory

Flexibility Act’ (5 U.S.C. 601)

It has been certified that this rule is

not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not,

if promulgated, have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Public Law 96-511, ‘Paperwork

Reduction Act’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)

It has been certified that this part does

not impose any reporting or record

keeping requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 326

Privacy

Accordingly, Title 32 of the CFR is

proposed to be amended in Chapter I,

subchapter O, by adding part 326 to

read as follows:

PART 326––NATIONAL

RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE PRIVACY

ACT PROGRAM

Sec.

326.1 Purpose.

326.2 Application.

326.3 Definitions.

326.4 Policy.

326.5 Responsibilities.

326.6 Policies for processing requests for

records.

326.7 Procedures for collection.

326.8 Procedures for requesting access.

326.9 Procedures for disclosure of

requested records.

326.10 Procedures to appeal denial of

access to requested record.

326.11 Special procedures for disclosure of

medical and psychological records.

326.12 Procedures to request amendment or

correction of record.

326.13 Procedures to appeal denial of

amendment.

326.14 Disclosure of record to person other

than subject.

326.15 Fees.

326.16 Penalties.

326.17 Exemptions.

Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat 1896 (5

U.S.C. 552a).

§ 326.1 Purpose.

This part implements the basic

policies and procedures outlined in the

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5

U.S.C. 552a), and 32 CFR part 310; and

establishes the National Reconnaissance

Office Privacy Program (NRO) by setting

policies and procedures for the

collection and disclosure of information

maintained in records on individuals,

the handling of requests for amendment

or correction of such records, appeal

and review of NRO decisions on these

matters, and the application of

exemptions.