62992 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(1) Is held by another employee with

lower retention standing in the same

tenure group and subgroup; and

(2) Is not more than three grades (or

appropriate grade intervals or

equivalent) below the position from

which the employee was released,

except that for a preference eligible

employee with a compensable serviceconnected disability of 30 percent or

more the limit is five grades (or

appropriate grade intervals or

equivalent). (The agency uses the grade

progression of only the released

employee’s position of record to

determine the applicable grades (or

appropriate grade intervals or

equivalent) of the employee’s retreat

right. The agency does not consider the

grade progression of the position to

which the employee has a retreat right.);

and

(3) Is the same position, or an

essentially identical position, formerly

held by the released employee on a

permanent basis as a competing

employee in a Federal agency (i.e.,

when held by the released employee in

an executive, legislative, or judicial

branch agency, the position would have

been placed in tenure groups I, II, or III,

or equivalent). In determining whether

a position is essentially identical, the

determination is based on the

competitive level criteria found in

§ 351.403, but not necessarily in regard

to the respective grade, classification

series, type of work schedule, or type of

service, of the two positions.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–26945 Filed 10–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 932

[Docket No. FV00–932–3 FR]

Olives Grown in California;

Modification to Handler Membership

on the California Olive Committee

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule modifies the

handler membership on the California

Olive Committee (Committee). The

Committee locally administers the

California olive marketing order (order)

which regulates the handling of olives

grown in California. The Committee is

composed of 16 industry members of

which 8 are producers and 8 are

handlers. Current handler

representation on the Committee

provides that the two handlers who

handled the largest and second largest

total volume of olives during the crop

year in which nominations were made

and in the preceding crop year shall be

represented by three members and

alternate members each, and that the

remaining handler shall be represented

by two members and alternate members.

Recently, one of the handlers indicated

that it was exiting the business, and no

longer desired to serve on the

Committee. This rule reallocates

handler membership and enables the

Committee to operate at full strength.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 23, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose

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 final

rule is issued under Marketing

Agreement No. 148 and Order No. 932,

both as amended (7 CFR part 932),

regulating the handling of olives grown

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 final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. This action is not

intended to have retroactive effect. This

final 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 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 final rule modifies the order’s

administrative rules and regulations

regarding the structure of handler

membership on the Committee. The

change in structure was unanimously

recommended by the Committee.

Section 932.25 of the order provides

for the establishment of the Committee

to locally administer the terms and

provisions of the order. The Committee

is composed of 16 industry members,

each with an alternate. Of the 16

industry members, 8 are producers and

8 are handlers. This section also

specifies how the handler membership

on the Committee is allocated.

Authority is provided for the

Committee, with the approval of the

Secretary, to change the allocation of

both producer and handler members as

may be necessary to assure equitable

representation.

Based on this authority, § 932.159 of

the administrative rules and regulations

currently provides that the two handlers

who handled the largest and second

largest total volume of olives during the

crop year in which nominations were

made and in the preceding crop year

shall be represented by three members

and alternate members each, and the

remaining handler shall be represented

by two members and alternate members.

This reallocation was implemented in

January of 1999 (64 FR 4286) with an

interim final rule. Comments were

invited until March 29, 1999. The

interim final rule was adopted without

change in a final rule in April of 1999

(64 FR 23009).

The structure of the olive industry has

changed over the years and the number

of handlers, both cooperative and

independent (or handlers not affiliated

with a cooperative marketing

organization), has decreased. At one

time, there were a number of

cooperative marketing organizations and

independent handlers and the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 62993

Committee’s structure was designed so

that four of the eight handler seats were

held by cooperatives and four were held

by independents. This representation

was also weighted by the volume of

olives handled so that if one group,

either cooperatives or independents,

handled 65 percent or more of the total

industry’s volume handled during the

nominating crop year and the preceding

crop year, that group would have five

seats on the Committee and the other

group would have three seats.

In 1993, handler membership on the

Committee was reallocated to reflect

changes within the handler segment of

the industry. The number of industry

handlers declined to only five

handlers—one cooperative and four

independents. At that time, § 932.159 of

the order’s rules and regulations was

modified to reapportion handler

membership to provide cooperative

handlers with two seats on the

Committee and independent handlers

with six seats.

When the number of handlers

declined to one cooperative and two

independent handlers, and restrictions

on handler affiliation resulted in two

vacant handler positions on the

Committee, changes on handler

allocation were implemented to allow

those positions to be filled and to enable

the Committee to operate at full

strength. Section 932.159 was revised

(64 FR 4286, January 28, 1999; 64 FR

23009, April 29, 1999) to eliminate the

distinction between cooperative

marketing organizations and

independent handlers and § 932.160 on

handler affiliation was removed. The

eight handler seats on the Committee

were reallocated based on the total

volume of olives handled during the

crop year in which nominations are

made and the preceding crop year, with

the handlers handling the first and

second largest volume being represented

by three members each, and the

remaining handler being represented by

two members.

Recently, one handler in the industry

indicated that it was exiting the

business, will no longer be handling

olives after it markets its old crop

inventory, and, that it no longer desired

to serve on the Committee. The

Committee met and unanimously

recommended modifying the rules and

regulations to reallocate handler

membership equally between the two

other handlers. Each handler will be

represented by four handlers and four

alternates. This rule modifies the

Committee’s handler membership to

enable the Committee to operate at full

strength; i.e., with the eight handler and

eight producer positions filled.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

has considered the economic impact of

this final rule on small entities.

Accordingly, AMS has prepared this

final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit

regulatory actions to the scale of

business subject to such actions in order

that small businesses will not be unduly

or disproportionately burdened.

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the

Act, and rules issued thereunder, are

unique in that they are brought about

through group action of essentially

small entities acting on their own

behalf. Thus, both statutes have small

entity orientation and compatibility.

There are 3 handlers of California

olives who are subject to regulation

under the marketing order and

approximately 1,200 olive producers in

the regulated area. One of these

handlers informed the Committee that it

plans to exit the industry, and will no

longer be handling olives after it

markets its old crop inventory. Small

agricultural service firms have been

defined by the Small Business

Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as

those having annual receipts of less than

$5,000,000, and small agricultural

producers are defined as those having

annual receipts of less than $500,000.

None of the olive handlers may be

classified as small entities.

A review of historical and preliminary

information pertaining to the 1999–00

crop year (August 1 through July 31)

indicates that total grower revenue for

the 1999 crop will be approximately

$39,500,000, and the average grower

revenue will be approximately $33,000.

Thus, it can be concluded that the

majority of producers of California

olives may be classified as small

entities.

This rule modifies the rules and

regulations of the olive order regarding

the structure of handler membership on

the Committee. Section 932.25 of the

order provides for the establishment of

the Committee to locally administer the

terms and provisions of the order. The

Committee is composed of 16 industry

members, each with an alternate. Of the

16 industry members, 8 are producers

and 8 are handlers. This section also

specifies how the handler membership

on the Committee is allocated.

Authority is provided for the

Committee, with the approval of the

Secretary, to change the allocation of

both producer and handler members as

may be necessary to assure equitable

representation.

Section 932.159 of the administrative

rules and regulations provides that the

two handlers who handled the largest

and second largest total volume of

olives during the crop year in which

nominations were made and in the

preceding crop year shall be represented

by three members and alternate

members each, and the remaining

handler shall be represented by two

members and alternate members.

The structure of the olive industry has

changed over the years and the number

of handlers, both cooperative and

independent, has decreased. At one

time, there were a number of

cooperative marketing organizations and

independent handlers and the

Committee’s structure was designed so

that four of the eight handler seats were

held by cooperatives and four were held

by independents. This representation

was also weighted by the volume of

olives handled so that if one group,

either cooperatives or independents,

handled 65 percent or more of the total

industry’s volume handled during the

nominating crop year and the preceding

crop year, that group would have five

seats on the Committee and the other

group would have three seats.

In 1993, handler membership on the

Committee was reallocated to reflect

changes within the industry. The

number of industry handlers declined to

only five handlers—one cooperative and

four independents. At that time,

§ 932.159 of the order’s rules and

regulations was modified to reapportion

handler membership to provide

cooperative handlers with two seats on

the Committee and independent

handlers with six seats.

When the number of handlers

declined to one cooperative and two

independent handlers, and restrictions

on handler affiliation resulted in two

vacant handler positions on the

Committee, changes on handler

allocation were implemented to allow

these positions to be filled and to enable

the Committee to operate at full

strength. Section 932.159 was revised

(64 FR 4286, January 28, 1999; 64 FR

23009, April 29, 1999) to eliminate the

distinction between cooperative

marketing organizations and

independent handlers and § 932.160 on

handler affiliation was removed. The

eight handler seats on the Committee

were reallocated based on the total

volume of olives handled during the

crop year in which nominations are

made and the preceding crop year, with

the handlers handling the first and

second largest volume being represented

by three members each, and the

remaining handler being represented by

two members.

Recently, one of the handlers

indicated that it was exiting the

62994 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

business, will no longer be handling

olives after it markets its old crop

inventory, and that it no longer desired

to serve on the Committee. The

Committee unanimously recommended

modifying the rules and regulations to

reallocate handler membership equally

between two handlers with each

handler represented by four members

and four alternates. This rule enables

the Committee to operate at full

strength; i.e., with the eight handler and

eight producer positions filled.

One alternative to this rule discussed

at the meeting was to leave the language

in § 932.159 unchanged; however, the

current language is no longer

appropriate. The current language

specifies that the two handlers who

handled the largest and second largest

volume of olives during the crop year in

which nominations are made and in the

preceding crop year shall be represented

by three members and alternate

members each, and that the remaining

handler shall be represented by two

members and two alternate members.

Since one of the remaining handlers no

longer desires to serve on the

Committee, the language concerning the

two seats allocated to the third handler

is no longer appropriate. Therefore, the

Committee recommended that handler

membership be reallocated equally

between two handlers and that each

handler be represented by four members

and four alternate members.

This final rule will not impose any

additional reporting or recordkeeping

requirements on either of the two olive

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. In addition, the

Department has not identified any

relevant Federal rules that duplicate,

overlap, or conflict with this rule.

Further, the Committee’s meeting was

widely publicized throughout the olive

industry and all interested persons were

invited to attend the meeting and

participate in Committee deliberations

on all issues. Like all Committee

meetings, the meeting at which the

recommendation was made was a public

meeting and all entities, both large and

small, were able to express their views

on this issue. All of the industry

handlers currently represented on the

Committee participated in the

deliberations. Finally, interested

persons were invited to submit

information on the regulatory and

informational impacts of this action on

small businesses.

A proposed rule concerning this

action was published in the Federal

Register on September 11, 2000 (65 FR

54818). Copies of the rule were mailed

or sent via facsimile to all Committee

members and olive handlers. Finally,

the rule was made available through the

Internet by the Office of the Federal

Register. A 30-day comment period

ending October 11, 2000, was provided

to allow interested persons to respond

to this proposal. No comments were

received.

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.

After consideration of all relevant

matter presented, including the

information and recommendation

submitted by the Committee and other

available information, it is hereby found

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth,

will tend to effectuate the declared

policy of the Act.

It is further found that good cause

exists for not postponing the effective

date of this rule until 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register (5

U.S.C.) because the two vacant handler

member seats on the Committee should

be filled as soon as possible, so that the

Committee can operate at full strength.

Further, handlers are aware of this rule,

which was recommended at a public

meeting. Also, a 30-day comment period

was provided for in the proposed rule

and no comments were received.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932

Marketing agreements, Olives,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is amended as

follows:

PART 932—OLIVES GROWN IN

CALIFORNIA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 932 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. Section 932.159 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 932.159 Reallocation of handler

membership.

Pursuant to § 932.25, handler

representation on the Committee is

reallocated to provide that the two

handlers who handled the largest and

second largest total volume of olives

during the crop year in which

nominations are made and in the

preceding crop year shall each be

represented by four members and four

alternate members.

Dated: October 17, 2000.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–27082 Filed 10–17–00; 5:09 pm]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–35–AD; Amendment

39–11933; AD 2000–21–01]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed

Model L–1011–385 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all Lockheed Model L–

1011–385 series airplanes, that requires

repetitive inspections to detect

corrosion or fatigue cracking of certain

structural elements of the airplane;

corrective action, if necessary; and

incorporation of certain structural

modifications. This amendment is

prompted by new recommendations

related to incidents of fatigue cracking

and corrosion in transport category

airplanes that are approaching or have

exceeded their economic design goal.

The actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent corrosion or fatigue

cracking of certain structural elements,

which could result in reduced structural

integrity of the airplane.

DATES: Effective November 24, 2000.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of November

24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Lockheed Martin Aircraft &

Logistics Center, 120 Orion Street,

Greenville, South Carolina 29605. This

information may be examined at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,

Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office,

One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix

Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia;

or at the Office of the Federal Register,